voicestudio_file_info

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the link is timed and gets renewed on this call, and the link is a bearer-style capability usable by anyone holding it, with a warning not to publish private recordings. The only gap is the mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, since renewing an expiry is a side effect (though idempotent and non-destructive, matching the other hints).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the security caveat second. Nothing is redundant, though the security sentence is phrased as an admonition rather than operational detail.

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 no output schema, the description should say what 'inspect' returns (metadata fields, expiry window, link format) and it does not. For a simple one-parameter lookup this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the response shape and link lifetime.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter file_id is undocumented. The description partially compensates by implying the id refers to a staged or generated file, but adds no format, prefix, or lookup semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: inspecting a 'staged/generated file' and renewing its 'timed download link'. That distinguishes it from the job/operation/upload siblings, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only implied trigger is having a file already staged or generated, and no alternative (e.g. read_resource) is mentioned for retrieving file content instead of metadata.

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