fitter_run_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns extracted data as JSON but does not mention whether modifications occur, required permissions, or error handling (e.g., file not found). The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second clarifies the difference from a sibling. No 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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits important context like what happens if the file is invalid, permissions needed, or error scenarios. It is adequate for simple use but has gaps compared to a fully transparent description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that 'input' is optional and used with placeholders, which the schema already covers. No further value is added for the 'path' parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Run), the resource (Fitter config file), and distinguishes it from fitter_run by specifying 'reads the config from disk.' It also indicates the output format (JSON). This differentiates it from sibling tools like fitter_config_reference, fitter_run, and fitter_run_url.

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 explicitly notes 'Same as fitter_run but reads the config from disk,' which helps users decide between this tool and fitter_run. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or mention other alternatives besides the direct sibling comparison.

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