Get a file download URL

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the key behavior: the URL is one-time signed (ephemeral, expires) and binary-safe. It omits TTL, whether the URL requires the panel credentials embedded, and any permission requirements for reading the file.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, no filler. The second sentence is slightly telegraphic in phrasing but still useful, so it just misses a 5.

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?

Six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the two required identifiers are undescribed everywhere. For a tool whose output is a credential-bearing URL, the description says nothing about expiry, scope of access, or how to use the returned URL, leaving real gaps.

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 coverage is 67% and the two required parameters, 'server' and 'file', have no schema descriptions at all; the description adds no guidance on their format (server ID vs name, absolute path). The optional panel/baseUrl/clientKey/applicationKey overrides are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Return a one-time signed URL to download a file' — plus a distinguishing property (binary-safe). It is clearly separable from files_read/files_write, though it never names a sibling such as files_upload_url or files_read.

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 phrase 'Fetch it outside the model context' implies when this is preferred (binary/large payloads the agent shouldn't inline), but it never states when-not-to-use or points to files_read for text content. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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