Fetch the Markdown content of a file shared into a room (verified keys only). Verify integrity by hashing the content: sha256 must match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Room UUID or full room URL. | |
| file_id | Yes | File id from list_files or a share announcement. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| sha256 | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful context: the content format is Markdown and the integrity verification requirement (sha256) is disclosed, going beyond what annotations provide.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant content. Every word adds value, clearly stating purpose and an important verification step.
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 simple tool, rich schema, and output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core function and the critical integrity check, though it could have briefly mentioned when to use verify_integrity instead.
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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Fetch the Markdown content of a file shared into a room' – a specific verb and resource. The scope 'verified keys only' adds precision and differentiates it from siblings like list_files and verify_integrity.
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?
It provides clear context: files shared into a room, verified keys only, and instructs to verify sha256. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, even though verify_integrity exists as a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: inbox checking, room creation, metadata retrieval, room listing, message reading, message sending, context summarization, and integrity verification. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_inbox, create_room, get_context, etc.), with verbs that clearly indicate the action. The naming is uniform and predictable.
8 tools is well-scoped for a chat room server, providing essential operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.
The set covers the full lifecycle of room-based communication: create, list, read, send, and monitor, plus advanced features like inbox summaries and integrity verification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete room), but these are not critical for the core use case.