read_textfile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the gopher type (0) and that it reads plain text, but does not disclose truncation behavior due to maxChars, error handling, or response structure. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for a file retrieval tool.

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 two concise sentences: the first front-loads the core function, the second provides use cases. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify behaviors like maxChars truncation or response format. It covers purpose and usage but leaves operational details unaddressed, making it minimally adequate.

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 only 33% (only selector has a description). The tool description does not explain host or maxChars semantics, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from defaults alone. It also fails to elaborate on how to construct a valid selector beyond the schema example.

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 'Read a plain-text file from gopherspace (gopher type 0)', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like open_menu and search_veronica by narrowing the scope to text files.

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 clear context by mentioning use for 'floodgap texts, old FAQ collections, and historical documents', which implies the tool is appropriate for reading textual gopher content. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the context and sibling names indirectly clarify alternatives.

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