cat

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

Description goes beyond annotations by detailing output format (JSON by default vs. raw), support for byte-offset and length for partial reads, and bounded content. It confirms read-only behavior consistent with annotations.

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?

Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by details and exclusions. No redundancy; concise yet comprehensive.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, raw mode, and partial reads. It could elaborate on the JSON return format but remains sufficient for correct usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, but description adds context on how parameters affect behavior (e.g., --raw for plain-text, offset for partial reads). It explains the default JSON envelope and max_bytes limitation, enhancing understanding.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Read and output file contents' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like head, tail, and od by specifying its use for file inspection and excluding binary inspection.

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?

Guidelines are explicit: 'Use to inspect file contents in agent workflows' and 'Not for binary inspection — use od for hex/octal dumps.' It also references alternative tools head, tail, and od.

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