get_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the result is a file_path and showing how to construct the download URL (including the bot token placeholder). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the output's usage, warranting a 4.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the action and purpose; the second provides the download URL template. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only), the description covers the core purpose and the return value usage. It would benefit from a mention that file_id originates from a message or other source, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward getter.

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 one required parameter (file_id) with no description, and the description provides zero explanation of what file_id is or how to obtain it. With schema coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's meaning.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Get file info for downloading') and identifies the resource (file info). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like download_file by framing this as the info-gathering step, and the provided URL template reinforces the tool's role.

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 clearly implies the workflow: use get_file to obtain file_path, then download via the URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and the download URL indicate when this tool is relevant. Lacks explicit 'use when' language, but the purpose is clear enough.

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