printful_get_file

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits, but the description specifies that it 'Returns file status, dimensions, DPI, and URLs' and advises checking 'processing status before using in orders.' This discloses return details and a prerequisite check that annotations don't cover, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two brief sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with a critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 required parameter), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return details, and a key usage guideline. However, it could be more comprehensive by mentioning the 'format' parameter's effect or linking to sibling tools for broader context.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema lacks descriptions for parameters, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining 'file_id' or 'format' usage. However, since there's only 1 required parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't degrade understanding but adds no param semantics.

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's purpose: 'Get information about a file in the library.' This specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('a file in the library'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'printful_get_mockup_task' or 'printful_get_order', which also retrieve information about different resources.

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 provides clear context for usage with 'Check processing status before using in orders,' which implies this tool should be used to verify file readiness before order creation. This offers practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'printful_add_file' for adding files instead of retrieving info.

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