ym_execute_file

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms it reads or writes. Beyond that, it adds file path constraints and the discoverability hint, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or behavior in edge cases like overwriting or appending.

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, consisting of two short sentences that convey purpose, constraints, and a usage hint. Every word earns its place 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 the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers basic purpose and constraints. However, it omits details on the action parameter format and potential pitfalls, making it adequate but with noticeable gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for file_path (path restrictions) and hints that action values come from ym_search, but provides no explanation for params_json. This partial coverage is helpful but incomplete.

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 tool executes an action that reads or writes a file, specifying the resource (file) and verb (execute). It differentiates from siblings like ym_search and ym_execute by focusing on file operations and directing users to ym_search for discovering actions.

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 context on when to use the tool: after discovering file actions via ym_search with is_file=true. It also imposes file_path restrictions (~/... or /tmp/...), guiding proper usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for non-file actions.

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