ampl_read_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses critical security behavior: direct file contents are guard-checked, but nested includes/libraries execute unchecked and are reported in a 'warnings' list, plus it details failure return structure with 'message' and 'detail'. This is exceptional transparency that goes well beyond a typical tool description.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it starts with the primary purpose, then layers essential security caveats and failure reporting behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or ambiguity, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 tool's high-complexity security profile, the description is self-sufficient: it covers file resolution, guard-checking, nested-file execution risk, warnings, and error detail. It also aligns with the output schema by referencing 'warnings', 'message', and 'detail', so explicit return-value documentation is unnecessary.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps .mod/.dat/.run to file types, which partially clarifies model/data/run parameters, but it does not explain the 'session' parameter or individual parameter semantics. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description does not fully fill the schema coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Load .mod/.dat/.run files by path, resolved inside the session workdir.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling ampl_eval by noting files are guard-checked 'exactly like a statement passed to ampl_eval,' making clear this tool is for file loading rather than inline evaluation.

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 clearly establishes the tool's use case: loading files by path within a session workdir, with explicit file types (.mod/.dat/.run). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from inline evaluation and other session management tools.

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