inspect_file_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' and 'return metadata' convey a read-only operation and specify the expected output. It does not detail error behavior (e.g., missing file) or path validation, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and output examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it operates on, and what it returns. No additional context is needed for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 schema has only 'path' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the path refers to a 'generated test file', which is useful, but it does not specify path format, absolute/relative requirements, or file type limitations. Coverage is only partially compensated.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource as 'generated test file', clearly distinct from the sibling create_* tools. It also lists concrete metadata fields returned (size, MIME type, SHA256), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context is clear: this tool is for inspecting generated test files, which are created by the sibling tools. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the distinction from creation tools is self-evident, providing adequate usage guidance.

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