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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool does not invoke a model, which is important context. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as whether the extraction is bounded by length, how it handles non-printable characters, performance implications, or the structure of the output. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence with no waste, and the key differentiator ('without invoking a model') is front-loaded. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, with 2 parameters and no nested objects. The output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, the description does not clarify the meaning of 'bounded' (e.g., maximum string length) or the 'limit' parameter, leaving some ambiguity. For a low-level extraction tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention 'path' or 'limit' at all. The schema only provides titles and defaults, so an agent has to infer that 'limit' likely controls the maximum number of strings returned, but this is not stated. This is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('bounded ASCII strings from a file'), and explicitly distinguishes it from model-based extraction by adding 'without invoking a model'. This makes the purpose clear, but it does not directly reference any sibling tool to differentiate it beyond that.

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 this tool should be used when you need to extract bounded ASCII strings from a file without using a model, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like read_binary_slice or read_text_excerpt. It gives context (low-level extraction) but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are 'deterministic,' which is a useful trait, and lists the output fields. However, it omits any mention of error handling (e.g., nonexistent file), permission requirements, or side effects. For a read-only metadata operation, this is a moderate gap but not egregious.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists what the tool returns. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, because there are no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent might not know when to prefer this tool over others or what edge cases exist. The description is sufficient for basic comprehension but lacks completeness in behavioral and contextual aspects.

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 a single parameter 'path' with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the path parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on path format, absolute vs relative paths, or file accessibility. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'file metadata' and enumerates the output fields (size, hash, magic, extension, MIME guess, entropy). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_text_excerpt or read_binary_slice; the distinction is implied by the nature of metadata retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like inspecting files before reading content, nor does it exclude cases where other tools are more appropriate. There are no prerequisites or conditions stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a bounded read scope ('allowed read root') but does not explain behavior such as recursion, sorting, hidden files, error handling, or whether the limit applies per directory. The description is too thin to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is not a flaw.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present but not described, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the returned metadata looks like, how the limit behaves, or what path format is expected. The tool has 8 siblings, so more context is needed to route correctly.

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, but it only mentions 'file metadata' and 'allowed read root'. It does not explain the 'path' parameter semantics (e.g., relative vs absolute, directory vs file) or the 'limit' parameter behavior (e.g., max results, pagination). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('list') and resource ('file metadata') with a scope constraint ('under an allowed read root'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like read_text_excerpt or get_file_metadata, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'under an allowed read root' implies a sandboxed/workspace context and suggests the tool is for safe listing within permitted paths. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_file_names or get_file_metadata, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only ('never modifies a disassembler DB'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if the address is not found, whether it returns a single record or an array, or any error conditions. The read-only guarantee is helpful but incomplete.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the read-only guarantee. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description lacks context about address format, not-found behavior, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 mentions 'by address' and the schema defines 'address' as a string, but the description does not add format details (e.g., hex, decimal, or file-relative addressing). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Query'), a resource ('one test pseudocode record'), and a key parameter ('by address'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on a single record lookup rather than file listing, text search, or metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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: use this when you need a single test pseudocode record by address. It also notes that it 'never modifies a disassembler DB,' which hints at a safe read-only context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read and that the result is hexadecimal, which is useful, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior, unit assumptions, or error conditions such as out-of-bounds offset or length.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

The output schema likely covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, the tool has three required parameters with zero schema-level descriptionsтной and no annotations. The omission of explicit byte-unit semantics and file path meaning leaves the definition only minimally complete for a straightforward tool.

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 for the missing parameter documentation. It does not explain that 'path' refers to a file path, that 'offset' is a byte offset, or that 'length' is a byte count. The word 'bounded' hints at the offset/length relationship but does not provide enough semantic detail.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('binary slice'), and the output format ('as hexadecimal'). The phrasing 'binary slice' clearly differentiates this from the sibling read_text_excerpt, so an agent can identify the tool's role without inspecting the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_text_excerpt or extract_printable_strings. There is no stated exclusion, prerequisite, or explicit preference, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and brief phrase.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'bounded' and the offset mechanism, but omits critical details such as what happens if offset exceeds file length, whether the file must already be UTF-8 or if it attempts conversion, error handling, and the effect of max_chars (e.g., hard cap, truncation behavior). These gaps leave an agent guessing about edge cases.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the offset hint is appended as a concise usage note. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return format need not be explained), the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. It fails to specify max_chars behavior (e.g., whether it returns fewer characters if the file is shorter), offset handling at file boundaries, encoding validation, or error conditions. An agent would need to experiment or assume defaults, which is risky in production workflows.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only indirectly explains offset_chars ('continue a large file') but says nothing about the meaning or constraints of max_chars (default 4000, but is it a strict max?) or path (what kind of paths are acceptable). This under-specification forces the agent to rely on schema types alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 (read) and a precise resource (bounded UTF-8 text chunk), and the phrase 'use offset_chars to continue a large file' clarifies the intended use of paging. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_binary_slice (binary vs text) and extract_printable_strings (different extraction purpose), making its function unmistakable even without inspecting the schema.

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 instruction 'use offset_chars to continue a large file' provides clear, actionable context for a specific scenario (reading large files in bounded chunks). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the purpose statement already implies it's for text reading, and the offset guidance is a concrete usage directive.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fixed' implying a predetermined command and 'allowed' implying validation, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or what the output contains beyond the existence of an output schema. Minimal behavioral context is offered.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and does not waste space. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, which slightly reduces the score.

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?

Despite the tool having only one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what ffprobe does (media metadata extraction), what the output looks like (even if schema covers structure, the semantics of 'metadata' are unclear), or what 'allowed' means in practice. The tool is under-specified for effective agent use.

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 schema has only one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description adds only the qualifier 'allowed input path', which hints at restrictions but doesn't specify how to determine validity or what format the path should take. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('ffprobe metadata command') on a path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_file_metadata by naming the specific tool (ffprobe), but doesn't explicitly state that ffprobe extracts media metadata, leaving some ambiguity about the exact purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_metadata or read_binary_slice. The phrase 'allowed input path' implies restrictions, but there is no explanation of what constitutes an allowed path or when this tool is preferred over others.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits (glob support and a bounded result set) but does not define what 'bounded' means, case sensitivity, or path traversal/recursion behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The term 'bounded' could be clarified, but the structure is appropriately brief.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the vague 'bounded' and missing path/limit semantics leave some invocation details under-specified for an agent with no other context.

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 meaning only for query (text or glob); path and limit are left to be inferred from their names and the schema default.

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 clear search action over filenames and signals glob capability, which distinguishes it from content-based siblings like search_text. The word 'bounded' is ambiguous, however, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 query format guidance ('text or a glob such as *.json') implies how to invoke it, and the filename focus implies a contrast with search_text. It never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain query matching semantics, whether searching is recursive, how the limit applies, or what 'allowed' and 'eligible' mean in practice, leaving important behavior unspecified.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and scope of the tool. It is highly concise while still conveying the primary distinction of the tool.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too thin to be complete. The output schema may define return shape, but the agent still lacks sufficient behavioral and parameter context to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, and the description adds only minimal meaning to the parameters. It implies that path may point to a file or directory and that query is textual, but it does not clarify the format, interpretation, or interplay of path, query, and limit.

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 clear verb and resource: searching text content within one file or all eligible files under a directory. It differentiates well from sibling tools like search_file_names and read_text_excerpt by scope, though it does not name them 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when searching text inside an allowed file or files under an allowed directory. It gives context but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool instead, and 'eligible' is left undefined, making the usage boundary somewhat vague.

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