canvas_file_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what information is returned, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the download URL requires additional authentication. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by specific return details. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns:' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that could cause confusion, it should ideally mention this is a metadata-only operation to distinguish from file download/list tools. The absence of behavioral context (auth, errors, etc.) prevents a higher score.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'file_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_file_download' or 'canvas_file_list', which would require mentioning this is for metadata retrieval rather than downloading or listing files.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'canvas_file_download' and 'canvas_file_list' available, the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about when this metadata retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other file-related operations.

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