خواندن متن یک فایل پیوست

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the format-specific failure modes (scanned PDFs, legacy formats) and the security advisory that file contents are untrusted data whose instructions must not be followed. It does not cover truncation/pagination behaviour or size limits, but those live in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and supported formats, followed by the two most decision-relevant caveats and the safety note. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers formats, failure modes, the image alternative, and the untrusted-content caveat, while all parameters are fully described in the schema. The only omission is explicit mention that long files must be continued via offset, though the schema's next_offset/offset text compensates.

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% and every parameter (offset, source, file_id, max_chars) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail about the parameters, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Download ... and return its text so it can be read and analysed') and an unambiguous resource (attached files), then enumerates the exact supported formats. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mizito_view_image, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative sibling ('for images use mizito_view_image') with the condition that selects it, and states exclusions up front: scanned PDFs yield no text, and legacy .doc/.xls are unsupported. That covers when-to-use, when-not, and the alternative in a compact form.

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