review_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the client's LLM reviews the file, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether LLM invocation has cost or latency implications, or what happens to the file.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the LLM invocation behavior, lack of annotations, and one undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough. It omits important context about permissions, cost/side effects, and how the path is interpreted, even though an output schema exists to cover return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter is 'path', and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the file is from a tenant workspace, without explaining path format, root resolution, or how it relates to sibling file tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Read a file') plus an additional behavior ('have the client's LLM review it'), and scopes it to a tenant workspace. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_root_file or summarize_text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_root_file, summarize_text, or search_in_roots. The description implies a review use case but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.