file_merge

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

The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the behavioral difference between 'merge' (interleaves by timestamp) and 'concat' (appends sequentially), which is core to how the tool operates. It does not repeat annotation info, but does not address output overwrite behavior, which would require a lower score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word earns its place. It conveys the core function and mode variants without any fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and mode semantics but omits guidance on parameters like snaplen and output_format, which have no schema descriptions. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no param docs) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is only partially complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter's values but leaves inputs, output_file, snaplen, and output_format entirely to name inference. This is minimal compensation for a 5-parameter tool.

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 explicitly states 'Merge two or more capture files into one' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_slice or file_dedup. It also clarifies the two modes ('merge' vs 'concat'), further defining the tool's function.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool (combining capture files) and explains the two modes, giving guidance on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions for when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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