file_operations_redirect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it omits any details about authentication requirements, behavior for invalid or incomplete operation IDs, or whether the redirect URL is temporary. This adds little beyond the tool name.

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 sentence, 'Get redirect URL for a file operation result,' which is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is very simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about the return value (e.g., the format of the redirect URL) or prerequisites (e.g., the operation must be completed), which would improve completeness given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter with the description 'File operation ID', and the tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('redirect URL'), and the specific context ('for a file operation result'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attachments_redirect or file_operations_info, which focus on different resources or aspects.

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 implies usage when a file operation ID is available and a redirect URL is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is inferred from the name rather than articulated.

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