fs__read_media_file

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

The description discloses the return format (base64 and MIME type) and a restriction (allowed directories), but it does not mention error handling, file size limits, or what happens if the file is not an image/audio. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, which is partially met.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and return type. Every word adds value, and it avoids 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it reads, what it returns, and a key constraint. Missing details like error behavior and path validation are minor gaps, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

The only parameter 'path' is described implicitly through the constraint 'only works within allowed directories', adding some context beyond the bare schema. However, no details about path format, absolute vs relative, or required extensions are given. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more, but for a single parameter it is minimally acceptable.

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 it reads image or audio files and returns base64 and MIME type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs__read_text_file. However, it does not explicitly exclude other file types or mention that it only supports media 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 a constraint ('Only works within allowed directories') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool over similar tools like fs__read_file or fs__read_text_file. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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