get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload composition (ffProbe, MediaInfo, transcode/health history, queue status), which is valuable given the absence of an output schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/idempotent or describe behavior when file_id does not exist.

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?

A single sentence with the core verb+resource front-loaded, followed by an em-dash list of contained data. There is zero filler, and every element — scope ('one file', 'full record') and content enumeration — 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 single-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: scope and the composition of the returned record. It omits error handling and alternative routing, but those are minor for a read-oriented tool of this simplicity, so it is nearly complete rather than merely adequate.

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 the file_id parameter description already provides a non-obvious detail — that the ID is actually the file's full path as Tdarr Server sees it. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but at full schema coverage the baseline of 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: 'Get one file's full database record', then enumerates the record's contents (ffProbe output, MediaInfo, transcode and health check history, queue status). The 'one file' and 'full record' scope clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_files, get_job_report, and list_file_job_reports in a large toolset.

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 use case is implied — whenever a single file's complete database record is needed — but the description never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it. With over 100 siblings (e.g., scan_file_details, get_job_report, search_files), explicit routing guidance would materially help an agent choose correctly.

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