parse_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently discloses config discovery behavior ('honoring discovered .sqlfluff config') and how config_path layers on top, which adds value. However, it does not mention side effects (though parse implies read-only) or error behavior, so it is adequate but not highly detailed.

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: a one-line purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. No redundant or filler sentences—every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and parameters.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: file parsing, config honoring, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly mention how this differs from parse_sql, but that is not required for using the tool correctly. The description is complete for its scope.

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 compensates by providing an Args section explaining both parameters: path is the file to parse, and config_path is an optional extra config file layered on discovered config. This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain type/title fields, though examples or edge cases are not included.

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's function: 'Parse a SQL file on disk and return its parse tree.' The verb 'parse' and resource 'SQL file on disk' are specific, and the phrase 'on disk' distinguishes it from sibling parse_sql, which likely parses SQL strings.

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 for file-based parsing ('file on disk') and mentions honoring .sqlfluff config, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like parse_sql or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion is given.

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