pt_file

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

The description adds useful scope by saying operations apply to the open workspace and that files use the .pkt extension. However, annotations are minimal and the description omits important behavior: whether save overwrites, whether unsaved work is lost on new/open, and what errors occur if no file is open.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and then the action set. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action set. It still leaves key invocation details ambiguous, especially path requirements and overwrite behavior, which matter for correct calls.

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 compensate. It maps the action enum values and notes the .pkt extension and path usage for open/save_as, but does not clarify that path is required for open and save_as and ignored for new/save.

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 ("file operations on the open workspace") and enumerates the supported actions, which clearly distinguishes it from topology, device, and CLI siblings. It stops short of a fully precise purpose statement because "file operations" is somewhat generic.

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 action list implies when to use each operation, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use this tool, or how it relates to siblings like pkt_convert or pkt_export_configs. An agent can infer usage but must make assumptions.

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