scf_get_evidence_file

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the tool returns metadata plus a pre-signed download URL, and the URL expires in 15 minutes. This helps the agent understand response timing and re-invocation needs.

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 sentences with no filler. The key facts — metadata, pre-signed URL, 15-minute expiry, single artifact — are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only single-file retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and three well-documented parameters, the description conveys the essential behavior. There is no output schema, so slightly more detail about what 'metadata' includes could improve completeness, but it is adequate for correct 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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description with a source command for obtaining its value. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action and resource: retrieving metadata and a pre-signed download URL for a single evidence file. The phrase 'single evidence file' and 'specific uploaded artifact' clearly distinguishes this from listing or aggregation siblings like scf_list_evidence_files or scf_get_evidence_maturity.

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 explicitly says to use the tool to inspect or retrieve a specific uploaded artifact, which gives clear context for when it applies. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'single file' wording implicitly sets it apart from list or bulk operations.

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