humanizer_assess_file

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides little: 'Score' implies a read-only analysis, but that is never stated, nor is what happens with unsupported or corrupt files, whether extraction is lossy, or whether runs/backend cause multiple passes or external calls. The only behavioral fact conveyed is the set of accepted file formats.

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 no filler that front-loads the verb, the supported formats, and the equivalence reference. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: two parameters are unexplained and the return value is only gesturally covered by deferring to humanizer_assess_text. An agent could call it, but not confidently configure runs or backend.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. 'path' is self-evident from its name, but 'runs' and 'backend' — which look like they control repeated scoring passes and an underlying provider — are given no meaning at all in either the schema or the description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('a PDF, DOCX, Markdown or text file'), and anchors the semantics by equating it to the sibling humanizer_assess_text. It implicitly separates itself from humanizer_humanize_file (transform) and humanizer_assess_text (raw text), though it never states those contrasts explicitly.

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 'the same way as humanizer_assess_text' implies the selection rule (use this when the input is a file rather than a string), but the agent must infer it. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of unsupported formats, and nothing about when to reach for humanizer_assess_pair or humanizer_extract_document instead.

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