analyze_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating that the complete file content is processed without truncation, a useful behavioral guarantee. However, it omits details like permissions, error handling, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise at three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, key behavioral detail, and use cases. There is no fluff or repetition, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the main behavioral nuance (no truncation), and typical applications. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward read-and-analyze 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 coverage is 100%, so both file_path and pattern are already documented with descriptions. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 reads a file and applies a Fabric pattern in one step, using specific verbs ('read', 'analyze') and resources ('file', 'pattern'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the combined operation and the no-truncation guarantee, making its unique role clear.

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 explicit usage context: 'Useful for analyzing documents, code files, logs, etc.' This indicates appropriate scenarios without discussing exclusions or alternative tools. While not as explicit as naming alternatives, the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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