Sa File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this drives a GUI dialog, the action sequence, and that it returns the folder listing, but omits important traits such as whether it blocks, GUI/session prerequisites, and overwrite/confirm side effects on save dialogs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a compact action list and a parenthetical trigger context; no filler. Slightly dense with the long parenthetical, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained (it still notes the folder listing). However, for a GUI-driving tool with zero annotations, the description leaves behavioral gaps (blocking, prerequisites, destructive save effects) that an agent would want.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description's 'change folder, type a name or pick a file, confirm' adds workflow ordering but no meaning beyond what the schema already states for directory, name, select, and confirm.

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 (Drive) and resource (SAStudio4 file dialog) and lists the concrete actions (change folder, type/pick a file, confirm). It ties the tool to its triggering context via sa_app 'File/Save State' etc., though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar siblings sa_dialog or sa_files.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it: after invoking sa_app 'File/Save State' / 'File/Recall State', record path, replay file, or export. It does not name an alternative tool or an exclusion, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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