get_file_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return details (filename, mime_type, etc.), which is helpful, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return details. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or usage scenarios.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but misses parameter semantics, behavioral traits like error handling, and lacks output schema details. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple required inputs and no structured safety hints.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 3 parameters. It only mentions 'file_id' indirectly ('by ID'), but provides no context for 'tenant_id' or 'project_id', such as their roles or how they relate to the file. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings adequately.

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 clearly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'metadata for a specific file by ID', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_files' by focusing on a single file rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'semantic_search_files', so it's not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_files' or 'semantic_search_files'. It implies usage for retrieving metadata of a known file ID, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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