goclaw_agent_files_get

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 'Read' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, metadata), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader agent file management context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'agent_id' and 'path' (including examples like 'SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('Read') and target ('a specific context file for an agent'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'goclaw_agent_files_list' (list files) and 'goclaw_agent_files_set' (write file). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of content is read (e.g., configuration, metadata) or the format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving agent configuration files, metadata, or other contexts, or how it differs from 'goclaw_agent_get' (which might get agent details). The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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