lastwords_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: binary artifacts are summarized rather than returned, and the file contents are untrusted workload data that must be treated as data, not instructions — an important prompt-injection guard. Minor gap: the non-idempotent hint is never explained, nor is behavior when the requested file is absent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the readable-file examples before the binary caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the filename list is somewhat long and partially duplicates the schema examples.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what is returned (raw text vs. a description for binaries) and how contents should be treated. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only the path to discovering valid file names (i.e. the get_capture sibling) is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so id, file, tail, and max_bytes are already documented, and the description mostly echoes them (file examples, tail for logs). It adds no new semantics such as how file names are discovered or what max_bytes truncation does to the returned value. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Read a raw evidence file from a capture') and grounds it with a concrete enumerated list of filenames (logs.txt, jvm-class-histogram.txt, timeline.csv, etc.), so an agent knows exactly what it will get. This is clearly distinct from the listing/capture-metadata siblings lastwords_list_captures and lastwords_get_capture.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the file list tells the agent what is readable, and 'Binary files (core.gz, heap dumps, pprof) are described rather than returned' prevents a wasted attempt at fetching artifact content. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings (e.g. 'call get_capture first to obtain the file list') and no stated exclusions.

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