fullscope_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that comments, docstrings, types, and whitespace are permanently stripped, mentions virtual line markers, and provides compression savings examples. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by savings, a warning, and an alternative. It is concise but covers all necessary points without fluff. Slightly longer than strictly necessary due to saving examples, but still well-structured.

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 description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. With 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, it provides sufficient context for usage. It does not explain standard error handling (e.g., missing file), but that is acceptable as it is likely handled externally.

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 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already defines parameters adequately.

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 verb ('compressed file read for CONTEXT ONLY') and resource ('file'), and distinguishes the tool from the built-in Read tool by specifying it strips comments, docstrings, types, and whitespace. It explicitly warns against using it for editing, providing a clear 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 description explicitly states when not to use the tool ('NEVER use for files you plan to edit') and provides the alternative ('Use the built-in Read tool when you need to Edit a file'). It also gives typical compression savings to help decide when to use it.

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