omos_read

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it returns text or image content, starts with a citation block that must be included in answers, and accepts a Drive file ID from omos_index or omos_search. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and provides solid behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

The description is short and well-structured: a one-sentence overview of what the tool does (including format types), then a specific instruction about the citation block, and finally a clear parameter description. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, limited schema, and no output schema, the description is complete for its simplicity. It explains the input, output format (including citation), and supported file types. A small gap is not explaining how the output type (text vs image) is determined (e.g., by file extension or a parameter).

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?

The description explains that the file_id parameter should come from omos_index or omos_search, adding meaning beyond the schema's simple type/required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by specifying the source of valid file IDs.

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 clearly states the tool reads a file from the OMOS drive and specifies supported formats (text types and image types). The verb 'read' combined with the resource 'file from OMOS drive' provides a specific, actionable purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like omos_index (indexing) and omos_search (searching).

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool (to read a file), and implicitly distinguishes it from omos_index and omos_search which are for listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for non-file operations.

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