glance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'quick look', the mutual-exclusivity constraint, and the return format ('string containing a snippet of the file/text and metadata'). However, 'metadata' is vague and no error handling or permission details are mentioned, preventing a higher score.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, then constraints, then argument definitions, then return value. It is mostly concise, but it redundantly states the mutual-exclusivity twice ('Exactly one...' and 'Do NOT provide both'), and 'first few thousands' is awkward phrasing. Minor issues, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the main behavior and return value. However, it leaves gaps: 'metadata' is unspecified beyond the earlier mention of line count, the exact character limit is vague ('few thousands'), and error scenarios (e.g., nonexistent file) are not addressed. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines context_path as 'the path to the file to glance at' and context_text as 'the text content to glance at', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It also explicitly states the critical mutual-exclusivity requirement, which the schema does not convey since both fields have defaults and are optional.

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 a specific action: 'Provides a quick look at the beginning of a file or a string, showing the first few thousands characters and total line count.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like summarize, search, and retrieve by emphasizing a lightweight, read-only preview. The verb 'glance' is apt, and the resource (file/text) is explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives is provided. The phrase 'quick look' implies a lightweight preview use case, but there are no clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The description does explain the parameter constraint ('Exactly one of context_path or context_text must be provided'), but this is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance.

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