获取文件信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds the useful detail that the result includes local/download path, but it does not disclose failure behavior or any permission requirements, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the resource, the action, and the key output aspect without redundant wording.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and '详细信息' is vague about the actual return shape, and the description provides no usage context to distinguish it from related siblings.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra semantics, such as whether 'file' and 'file_id' are alternatives or how they relate, so it remains at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('一般文件消息'), and adds what the caller gets: detailed info plus local/download path. It is clearly distinct from generic 'get message' or 'get image' tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_file_url or get_image.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_url or get_msg. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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