scf_get_evidence_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of metadata and a pre-signed URL with expiry, giving some behavioral insight. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, error handling, or read-only nature.

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 two concise sentences (21 words) with front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 3 required params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and what it returns (metadata + download URL with expiry). It could mention potential requirements like file existence or permissions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_evidence_files'). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves metadata and a pre-signed download URL for a single evidence file, with a specific 15-minute expiry. It distinguishes itself from listing tools like scf_list_evidence_files by focusing on a single file with download capability.

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 advises using the tool to inspect or retrieve a specific uploaded artifact, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools list implies other tools for listing or revalidation.

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