Get crawl folder file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the useful structural constraint that only one level of folder depth is reachable, but says nothing about permissions, what happens on a missing file, or how file bytes are returned.

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 leading sentence is a good front-loaded summary, but the raw HTTP route and the Args block largely restate the parameter names from the schema without adding information. It is short, but part of that brevity comes from omitting useful content rather than from tight writing.

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 file-read tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a family of near-identical siblings, the description should clarify return content (text vs. binary, raw body vs. base64) and error behavior. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would hit on first invocation.

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 all three parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only repeats the parameter names ('crawl_id: The crawl id', 'folder: Folder name', 'filename: File name'). It adds no format detail (e.g. whether crawl_id is a UUID, whether filename supports nested paths or extensions), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb and resource: read a file one folder deep in a crawl's output directory, backed by the explicit route /api/v1/crawls/crawl/{crawl_id}/files/{folder}/{filename}. The 'one folder deep' qualifier implicitly separates it from archivebox_get_crawl_subfolder_file and archivebox_get_crawl_file, though it never names those siblings.

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 depth constraint ('one folder deep') implies when this tool applies versus the sibling file/subfolder readers, and the route shows the required path shape. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over archivebox_get_crawl_file or archivebox_get_crawl_subfolder_file, so the routing is left to inference.

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