file_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any side effects, permissions, or constraints. For example, it does not clarify whether the tool reads file metadata only or reads the entire file, or if it requires the file to be accessible. This lack of detail leaves ambiguity.

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, clear sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it is perhaps too concise given the lack of guidance on parameters and usage. It earns its place but leaves significant gaps.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description still falls short. It does not explain what 'capture file type' means (e.g., MIME type, file extension) or any behavior like handling non-capture files. It is minimally complete only for a very basic understanding.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'capture_path' is not described in the schema at all. The tool description also provides no additional meaning about the parameter, such as expected format (e.g., absolute path, relative path, file:// URI) or constraints (e.g., must be a capture file). The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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: 'Return capture file type.' This is a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('capture file type'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'file_info' (which returns more details) and 'file_verify_readable' (checks readability).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as 'file_info' for more comprehensive information or 'file_verify_readable' to check file accessibility. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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