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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: files are accessible only with 'verified keys', and the content's sha256 hash must be verified after fetching. This goes beyond annotations and prepares the agent for an extra integrity check step. It does not specify error behavior on hash mismatch, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.
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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core function, and the second gives a critical integrity-check instruction. There is no filler, and the content is front-loaded with the primary purpose. This is an excellent example of concise, high-value description.
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?
With a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavioral nuance (verified keys, sha256 verification) and is sufficiently complete for a simple two-parameter fetch tool. The description leaves no major gaps for the agent to use the tool correctly.
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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters: uuid ('Room UUID or full room URL') and file_id ('File id from list_files or a share announcement'). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, though it reinforces that the file is shared into a room and only accessible with verified keys. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 function: 'Fetch the Markdown content of a file shared into a room'. The verb 'Fetch' is specific, the resource is a file's Markdown content, and the scope is files shared into a room. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_files (listing files) and verify_integrity (verifying hashes), as well as share_file.
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 implies usage context: it is for retrieving file content when you have a file_id and a room UUID. It also provides a concrete guideline: 'Verify integrity by hashing the content: sha256 must match.' This tells the agent to perform a verification step after fetching. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as list_files for getting file IDs, though these are inferable from the schema and sibling names.
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 action or resource: inbox check, room CRUD, message read/write, file operations, context summary, and integrity verification. Even potential overlaps like check_inbox vs read_messages are clearly separated by purpose (cross-room summary vs per-room message history).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case (e.g., create_room, send_message, verify_integrity). No mixed conventions or vague verbs, so the naming is highly predictable.
Eleven tools is well within the 3–15 sweet spot for a messaging platform, covering rooms, messages, files, context, and integrity. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full agent communication loop: room discovery, creation, messaging, inbox polling, file sharing, context summaries, and integrity checks. Minor gaps exist—no room update/delete, no message edit/delete, no file removal—but these are not essential for the core workflow and can be worked around.