fetch_output_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully compensates by detailing content display logic (truncation at 10KB, first 3 lines, format support), mandatory URL display, and user messaging. This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency beyond what annotations would typically cover.

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 verbose, containing multiple sections (overview, WHEN TO USE, CONTENT DISPLAY LOGIC, MANDATORY FORMAT) with some redundancy (e.g., truncation mentioned twice). It could be more streamlined while retaining key 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?

Given the simple schema (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter, and return format (via MANDATORY CONTENT DISPLAY FORMAT). No gaps remain for the user to guess about.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds a brief 'Args: file_url: URL of the file to fetch and display' that provides essential meaning. While not extensive, it clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 'Fetch and display content of an output file from rule execution' with specific verb and resource. The WHEN TO USE section further clarifies scope, differentiating it from other fetch tools by focusing on rule execution output files.

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 includes a WHEN TO USE section that lists specific scenarios (rule execution output contains file URLs, user requests to view file content, files contain reports/logs). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools, which would improve differentiation.

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