fiuba_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: content is returned as text, reads are chunked at 20k characters, and continuation is possible via offset — the pagination behavior is the key detail an agent needs and it is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and format list come first, followed by the two operational hints. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers source of input, output format, chunk size, and continuation — enough to call it correctly. It omits whether truncation is signaled in the return payload, which would be the only meaningful addition.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does: it identifies what `url` should be (the value from fiuba_get_course) and frames `offset` as the continuation cursor. It stops short of specifying that offset is a character position or what happens when the read is exhausted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads a file from the campus'), enumerates supported formats (PDF, text, HTML, CSV, code), and specifies the output shape ('as text'). It also names the sibling (fiuba_get_course) that supplies the input, so an agent can distinguish it from fiuba_forum_discussions or fiuba_grades without opening a schema.

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?

Tells the agent exactly where the required `url` comes from ('Pass the `url` from fiuba_get_course') and how to continue a truncated read with `offset`. It gives clear positive usage context but no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of limits such as maximum file size or error cases.

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