retrieve_from_ipfs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify return formats (bytes vs. string), error handling for invalid/missing CIDs, size limits, or timeout behavior for IPFS network retrieval.

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 extremely brief at five words and front-loads the key action. Every word earns its place, though given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, this borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to indicate what format the retrieved content is returned in, how errors are communicated, or any constraints on the content size or retrieval timing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'cid' is already well-documented as 'IPFS content identifier (CID)'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that retrieval is performed 'by CID' without adding format constraints, validation rules, or usage examples.

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 action (retrieve), resource (content from IPFS), and mechanism (by CID). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'store_on_ipfs' within the description text itself, relying instead on the tool name contrast.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for valid CIDs, or when retrieval might fail. There is no mention of the complementary 'store_on_ipfs' operation or read-only vs. write contexts.

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