get_file

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the signed `url` downloads with the bearer token, there is a `preview_url` where applicable, and access is described as 'reliable across permission levels'. That auth/entitlement detail is real value; it does not, however, discuss rate limits or what happens for inaccessible IDs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the alternative routing. Nothing is redundant given the output schema exists, and every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient: purpose, return shape, auth behavior, and the key alternative are all stated. The one gap is that it never says where a file_id comes from or what happens with an invalid/unauthorized ID.

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 0% and the single `file_id` parameter has no description in the schema, so the description carries the burden. 'By ID' only confirms the identifier role and adds no format, source, or validity guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID).

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata for a single file by ID') and the closing sentence distinguishes it from the sibling that returns bytes. An agent can tell it apart from download_file, fetch_file_content, and canvas_read_file without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance ('Use download_file to get actual bytes'), which is exactly the confusion an agent would have with three file-related siblings. It stops short of addressing the other file siblings (fetch_file_content, canvas_read_file) or stating any exclusion beyond that one case.

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