agent-tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable implementation detail about encoding detection (chardet + .editorconfig) not inferable from schema. However, fails to explicitly declare read-only safety, error conditions (e.g., directories vs files), or permission requirements.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the return value specification; second provides implementation context. 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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the specific metadata fields returned. Adequate for a single-parameter read-only tool, though explicit safety declaration would improve completeness given lack of annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Absolute path to the file'), establishing baseline 3. Description does not add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., whether path must be canonical, relative path handling, or symlink resolution).

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?

Description clearly states it 'Returns detailed file metadata' with specific enumerated fields (size, encoding, line ending, indentation style, line count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read' (content) and 'sloc' (source lines only), though it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over reading the file directly.

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?

Mentions relationship to read/edit ('Uses the same encoding detection as read/edit'), implying contextual usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. Does not clarify whether to use this before editing files or how it differs from 'checksum' or 'sloc' siblings.

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