Summarizes large local files—such as logs, CSVs, or code—before you open them, returning only the relevant details based on your focus to reduce token use.
Lê um arquivo grande no PC do usuário e devolve só um resumo (ex.: log, CSV, código).
Use antes de abrir arquivos longos inteiros. foco: o que procurar no arquivo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| foco | No | ||
| caminho | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that the file contents are not returned in full, only a condensed summary, but it omits limits such as maximum file size, permission/path constraints, and what happens on unreadable or binary files.
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 short sentences with the core capability and usage trigger front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing "foco: o que procurar no arquivo" is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly hurts polish.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage on a two-parameter tool that touches the user's local filesystem, the definition should say more about path expectations and size/error limits to be fully callable with confidence.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for "foco" (what to look for in the file) and implies "caminho" is a local filesystem path, but leaves format details (absolute vs relative path, encoding, whether foco is required in practice) unstated.
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 verb and resource: it reads a large file on the user's local machine and returns only a summary, with concrete examples (log, CSV, code). This clearly distinguishes it from browser/window readers and from resumir_texto, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
"Use before opening long files entirely" gives a clear trigger condition tied to file length, which is the deciding factor for choosing this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (resumir_texto, ler_relevante) or stating when-not to use it, so no explicit routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.