file_operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the three operation types, it doesn't describe what 'read' returns, how 'write' handles existing files, what 'list' includes, what 'info' provides, workspace boundaries, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is inadequate for a multi-operation tool with mutation capabilities.

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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with all essential information. Every word earns its place by covering the core functionality without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 multi-operation tool with write capabilities and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, workspace constraints, or behavioral differences between operations. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool effectively.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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's purpose with specific verbs (read, write, list) and resource (files in current workspace). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (calculator, system_info) by focusing on file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between the different operation types within the tool itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when specific operations are appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other file management approaches. The agent must infer usage from the operation parameter alone.

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