get_file_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. The statement is minimal.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative about the parameter without losing conciseness. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a basic idea of what is returned. It lists some metadata fields but does not mention the response format, error conditions, or what happens with invalid file IDs. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter (file_id) with 0% coverage in the schema description. The tool description provides no explanation of the parameter, its format, or usage. It adds no value beyond the parameter name.

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 begins with a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'Canvas file metadata'. It lists specific metadata fields (display_name, content-type, size, download URL), distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_text and get_assignment.

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?

The description simply states what the tool does without any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to related tools like get_file_text.

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