knowledge_get_file

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns a character count and an explicit truncated flag, implying long content may be cut off and that the caller can detect this. Nothing here contradicts the 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb comes first and every phrase ('extracted file text', 'total_chars', 'explicit truncated flag') adds meaning a caller benefits from. Nothing is redundant or missing in terms of economy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: the return characteristics are summarized despite there being no output schema. However, it leaves unclear how a valid file_id is obtained and which of the many knowledge/rag siblings is the intended choice for a given retrieval need.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about file_id—its format, provenance, or how to obtain it. The single parameter is self-descriptive by name and required, which limits the harm, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get extracted file text') and names the return fields (total_chars, truncated flag), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like knowledge_get or rag_get_file, leaving some ambiguity about which getter to reach for.

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 knowledge_get, rag_get_file, knowledge_search, or the other siblings. No context for when-not-to-use or which alternative fits a different intent is given, so an agent must rely on naming conventions alone.

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