Fetch Server File

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

The description discloses the security constraint (must be inside allowed dir) and that it returns raw content. However, it does not mention error handling, response format details, or that it is a read-only operation. Without annotations, this leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, stating the action first and then the constraint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and key constraints, and mentions the output as raw content. It lacks explicit details on error scenarios or security implications beyond the directory restriction, but for a simple fetch tool it is largely complete.

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 parameter description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the file path can be relative or absolute, gives an example, and explains the allowed directories. This is detailed and helpful for correct usage.

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 tool's purpose: fetching a file from the server as raw content via a GET request. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and the allowed directory constraint, making it distinct from sibling tools that list or manipulate 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 provides a constraint (allowed directories) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing or deleting files. The purpose is implied but not explicitly contrasted with other tools, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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