describe_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool combines file statistics with dictionary information and returns a dictionary with field definitions and counts. This adds meaningful context about the composite nature of the output, though it does not mention potential latency or permissions.

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 extremely concise: four sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. The structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are efficiently integrated. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 only one simple parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The output schema exists to detail the return format, so the description's high-level summary of 'file stats, field definitions, and counts' is sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section describing 'file_name' as 'Name of the Universe file', which adds context beyond the schema's title. However, the description is minimal and does not provide additional syntax or format details.

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 states a specific action ('Get a comprehensive description') and a specific resource ('Universe file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' (just listing) and 'get_file_info' (less comprehensive) by emphasizing combined file statistics and dictionary information.

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 description provides implied usage guidance ('useful for understanding data structure before querying') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to relevant siblings like 'analyze_file_structure', 'list_dictionary', or 'get_field_definition'.

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