view_file_full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by describing output transformations per file type, which is valuable. However, it lacks details on error handling, file size limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a mutation-like read operation.

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 sentences: first explains the tool's function with specific examples, second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits, but could improve by addressing potential errors or limitations for a file-reading tool.

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%, but the description compensates by implying the single parameter 'file_path' is used to locate the file for content extraction. It doesn't detail path formats or constraints, but for a tool with 0 parameters documented in schema, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 verb ('Return full contents') and resource ('a file'), specifying it provides a 'structured view' and listing exact format conversions (CSV→markdown table, XLSX→tables per sheet, MD→raw text, DOCX→paragraphs). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_file' by emphasizing 'complete file' versus 'not just search results'.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when the user wants to see the complete file, not just search results,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies an alternative (search-based tools) without naming specifics, but the context is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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