read_group_locker_file

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it rechecks group membership and ancestor folders, returns bounded extracted text or an unsupported-format warning, and explicitly states it does not upload or change locker files. The 'index' behavior is slightly ambiguous, but overall this is strong supplementary disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: the core action is front-loaded, behavioral guarantees follow, and exclusions are stated without repetition. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description covers the file source, membership revalidation, and return type at a high level. But with no output schema and multiple undocumented parameters, it leaves gaps around download behavior, offset and maxChars semantics, and error handling beyond unsupported-format warnings. It is minimally viable but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. filePath is loosely implied to come from list_group_locker_files, but offset, download, and maxChars get no semantic explanation. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action (read/index/download) on a precise resource (an exact file returned by list_group_locker_files). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that operate on folders or file listings, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 clear prerequisite: the file must be an exact file returned by list_group_locker_files. It also rules out upload/change behavior, helping to prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use a different file-related tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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