copy_entire_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns the full file content as a string, which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention potential issues like memory usage, error handling, or line number formatting. Basic transparency, but lacks deeper context.

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 minimal and well-organized with a one-line summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, and is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, which is a minor gap.

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 does so by clearly explaining both parameters: 'Path to source file' and 'Whether to include line numbers.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could include more details like path format or line number style.

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 copies the entire content of a source file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like copy_code (which likely copies to clipboard) and get_file_info (metadata) by focusing on full content 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 implies usage by saying 'copy entire content,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like copy_code or search_and_replace. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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