file_ops

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions actions and parameters but omits details like error handling, atomicity, or path resolution behavior. The conflict detection timestamp is mentioned but not explained.

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?

Description is front-loaded with a purpose sentence, then uses a clear list format for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all actions and parameter uses. Missing details like error handling or default behavior, but output schema (present) may supplement. Adequate for the complexity.

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%, but the description adds complete meaning for each parameter: outlines which actions use which parameters, enumerates encoding options, and specifies parameter roles (e.g., source_path for copy/move).

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 'File operations: write, append, copy, move, or delete' with specific verb+resource. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file and dir_ops by focusing on file manipulation actions.

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?

Description lists actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., read_file for reading). Usage context is implied but lacks when-not or comparison to siblings.

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