xero_get_file

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about governed authority routing and that effect must be read and is verified by Spring. However, it also mentions approval_ref 'when resuming a write,' which is confusing for a read-only tool, and it gives no operation-specific behavioral details such as how file selection works.

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 compact and well-organized with a header and an Args list. It avoids unnecessary prose and front-loads the routing constraint. The structure is clear, though the opening line adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

Even with output schema and annotations available, the description omits the core operational meaning: what file is fetched and how to identify it in the arguments JSON. An agent cannot determine the required payload, file selector, or expected behavior from this description alone. The routing and idempotency notes are useful but insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides one-line meanings for each parameter, such as idempotency_key as a 'stable business-action identity' and connector_account_ref as a 'project-bound connector account alias.' However, the critical arguments parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is circular and does not tell an agent what arguments are needed to select a file.

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 opens with 'Xero connector operation `get_file` (platform tool `xero.get_file`)', which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what get_file does or returns. It does not say 'retrieves a file' or define the scope of the operation, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like xero_list_files or xero_get_attachment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual statement, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' is a routing constraint rather than usage guidance. No prerequisites, selection criteria, or alternative tool references are provided.

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