get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that content is not returned, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, but for a simple metadata lookup this is a transparent and useful disclosure.

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 with two clauses, front-loading the core action and then providing a critical exclusion plus alternative. No wasted words, highly scannable.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description's information about metadata fields and the explicit non-content behavior is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks details about return format or errors, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling 'read_file' for content.

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 description does not explicitly explain the 'id' parameter. However, the phrase 'a single file' implies that 'id' identifies a file. Since there is only one required parameter and the schema already provides type/format, the description adds a modest amount of meaning but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 it retrieves metadata for a single file, naming example fields (name, mimeType, sizeBytes) and explicitly distinguishes itself from content retrieval by naming the alternative 'read_file'. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Does NOT return content' and directs the user to 'use read_file for that', providing a clear when-not and alternative. This meets the criteria for explicit usage guidance.

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