summarize_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses three behavioral constraints: input must be UTF-8, input must be a local file, and size is capped. It does not say what happens when the cap is exceeded, whether read permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the file-based scope is stated first. It is efficient, though 'size-capped' is too vague to fully earn its clause.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more. It omits the max_words parameter, the size cap value, error behavior, and output shape, leaving an agent unable to predict results or failure modes.

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% for 2 parameters. The description only obliquely gestures at 'path' (local file) and says nothing at all about 'max_words' (which defaults to 100), so the parameter that controls output length is entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?

Names a specific verb (summarize) and resource (local file), and explicitly anchors itself to the sibling 'summarize' by stating it works 'like' it but reads from a file. An agent can distinguish it from summarize, classify_file, and extract_file without opening schemas, though the distinction is by analogy rather than a direct statement.

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?

'Like summarize, reading UTF-8 text from a local file' implies the selection rule: use this when the source is a file rather than inline text. However, it never states when not to use it, nor what to do for non-UTF-8, non-text, or oversized files.

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