show_file_words

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a retrieval operation ('retrieves all the indexed words & meta-data'), which implies it's read-only and non-destructive. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, indexing status requirements, or error conditions. It adds some context about the Baloo system but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and context. The first sentence introduces the tool and technology, while the second elaborates on what it retrieves. There's minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating with the first.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the technology involved, but doesn't cover output format, error handling, or dependencies on the Baloo indexing status. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'path', clearly documenting it as 'The absolute path to the file to show indexed words & meta-data for'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'from a specific file' but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With 0 parameters beyond the documented one, the baseline is appropriately high.

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 specific action ('retrieves all the indexed words & meta-data'), the resource ('from a specific file'), and the technology context ('using KDE balooshow', 'indexed by KDE's Baloo search system'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search_files' by focusing on showing content from a single file rather than searching across files.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'indexed by KDE's Baloo search system', suggesting the tool is for files already indexed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_files' or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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