get_knowledge_base_source_file_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond those hints — it does not mention whether the returned URL is signed, time-limited, or requires the document to be of a particular source type.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words and is trivially front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is nothing to trim and equally nothing that earns its place beyond the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, yet it never states that the result is a URL, whether it expires, or how it relates to the knowledge-base document lifecycle. For a lookup tool in a dense family of retrieval siblings, this leaves an agent with too little to call it confidently.

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%, and the single parameter documentation_id is well described in the schema itself as the document id returned on document addition. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the explanatory work.

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 'Get Document Source File Url' is essentially a title-case restatement of the tool name, with no added specificity about scope, source type, or what distinguishes it from siblings like get_documentation_from_knowledge_base or get_knowledge_base_content. It conveys only a generic verb+resource pairing that the tool name already provides.

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 the many neighboring knowledge-base retrieval tools (get_documentation_from_knowledge_base, get_documentation_chunks_from_knowledge_base, get_knowledge_base_content). No prerequisites or context are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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