Get File Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' mostly restates them. The added value is the disclosure of the returned fields, which is useful but modest; nothing is said about permission requirements, error behavior for an invalid or inaccessible file_id, or the fact that the URL may be time-limited.

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 short sentences: the resource and its returned fields are front-loaded, then the sibling pointer. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and covers the read-only, idempotent nature via annotations. For a single-parameter lookup this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior on invalid IDs or permission denials is left unstated.

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 100% and the single file_id parameter is already documented with its type and where to obtain it (list_course_files, list_my_files, list_group_files). The description adds no format, constraint, or scoping information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for one file') and enumerates exactly what details are returned: name, size, content type, created/updated dates, download URL. It also names the sibling it is not (download_file), so an agent can separate metadata retrieval from binary download without opening either schema.

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?

'Use download_file to save it locally' gives an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it, which is the main ambiguity for this tool. It does not address when to prefer this over get_file_public_url or how it relates to list_course_files, so routing is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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