everything_preview_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose two useful behaviors — line numbering and binary detection — and 'preview' implies a read-only operation. Yet it doesn't specify the return format, how binary detection manifests in output, or any other limits beyond schema bounds.

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?

A single sentence with a front-loaded verb and object, followed by two compact behavioral details. Every phrase contributes information; there is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant background.

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?

For a small previw toolwith 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and two salient behaviors. It falls slightly short on return-value expectations and explicit exclusions, but an agent can still invoke it correctly using the schema and this description.

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 the baseline is 3; all three parameters are fully documented with defaults, bounds, and a required flag. The description adds no additional param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides — 'line numbering' is a behavior, not a parameter detail.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource — 'Previw text content of a file' — and clarifies the locating context, 'via Everything search'. This distinguishes it from the sibling search/find/status/info tools, none of which preview file content. The secondary detail about line numbering and binary detection further sharpens the purpose.

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?

The phrase 'located via Everything search' implies the tool is intended for use after a search has provided a path, and that its role is previewing rather than searching or metadata retrieval. However, there are no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions such as handling of non-text files.

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