files_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: base64 is returned only when the file fits max_inline_bytes, otherwise metadata with content_truncated=true, plus the explicit no-write boundary. Auth/rate-limit details are absent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the two modes and the truncation rule, with zero filler. Each sentence adds a distinct constraint (mode, size behavior, write exclusion).

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description omits the action_name vocabulary and valid parent_type values, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call from either field alone.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains max_inline_bytes semantics well but leaves action_name (no enum values), parent_type, parent_id, file_id, limit and offset entirely undocumented, so most parameters remain opaque.

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 two specific modes (list attachment metadata, download one bounded attachment) for a named resource and system (Snipe-IT attachments), and explicitly bounds itself against siblings by saying it 'cannot upload or delete files', separating it from files_upload and delete_resource.

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?

It makes clear when each mode applies (list metadata vs. a single bounded download) and gives a negative boundary ('cannot upload or delete files'), which routes the agent away from write siblings. It stops short of naming the concrete alternatives or listing the action_name values that select each mode.

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