get-file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return data (metadata and URLs) and the automatic prefix handling, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the output, and the second addresses a common user concern (prefix handling). It is both concise and front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (metadata fields and download URLs). Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent). For a simple retrieval tool, this is 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%. The description adds extra context by explaining the automatic 'File:' prefix for the title parameter, which is not in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema, so a 4 is justified.

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 returns metadata and download URLs for a file, specifying the fields (uploader, timestamp, size, MIME type) and the types of URLs (thumbnail, preview, original). It also notes the automatic 'File:' prefix addition, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like upload-file or update-file.

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 mentions the automatic prefix addition but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other file-related operations (upload-file, update-file) but no direct alternative for getting file metadata. The description implies usage for retrieving file info, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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