get_manual_entry_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds almost no behavioral detail beyond the verb 'fetch'—it does not clarify whether the tool returns file content, metadata, or a URL, nor does it explain how it differs from sibling download/get file operations. With openWorldHint=true, more context about how the file is referenced would be valuable.

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: a single phrase 'Fetch file of manual entry line'. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and there is no fluff. While it is terse, for a simple fetch operation with well-defined parameters, this level of brevity is acceptable, though slightly more specificity would improve it.

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?

The tool has three required parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It does not state whether the result is the file binary, a download link, or metadata, nor does it differentiate from related file-retrieval tools in the sibling list. Given the existence of download_file and get_read_file, this lack of clarification leaves the agent guessing about the actual response and usage.

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%, with all three parameters (manual_entry_id, entry_id, file_id) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema fully documents each parameter, 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 'Fetch file of manual entry line' uses a specific verb (fetch) and names the resource (file of manual entry line), giving a clear idea of what the tool does. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from immediate siblings like get_manual_compound_entry_file by the 'manual entry' scope, though the term 'manual entry line' is slightly unusual and could benefit from clarification.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as download_file, get_read_file, or get_manual_compound_entry_file. The description gives no context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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