get_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states that metadata is retrieved, but omits critical context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'metadata'. The agent is left guessing about side effects or permissions.

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 direct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse; it could include additional clarifying context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 required parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists) the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of usage guidelines and behavioral details reduces completeness. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is partially filled.

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 only parameter, file_id, is described as 'by ID' but the description adds no detail about what a valid file_id looks like, how to obtain it, or constraints. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get file metadata by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_download_url or get_file_history by specifying 'metadata'. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative file-related tools such as get_file_download_url or get_file_history. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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