get_file_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc., so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no context about what 'file usage' means, what the response looks like, or any limitations. It doesn't contradict annotations but fails to enrich them.

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 extremely concise—three words—with no wasted words. It is easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain what 'file usage' means or what the user should expect in the response. This is too thin to be considered a fully contextual description, especially given the potential ambiguity.

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 100% with the single parameter file_id described as 'File ID to show'. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic value is introduced.

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 states the verb 'Show' and resource 'file usage', which gives a basic idea of the action. However, 'file usage' is ambiguous—it could mean disk usage, references, or something else—and it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_file or download_file. A more specific term like 'file references' would be clearer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools. The user must infer from the name, which is insufficient for proper tool selection.

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