vast42_get_media_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the basic retrieval action but omits behavioral details such as what is returned, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or any read-only guarantee. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence containing no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it would be more complete if it described the return value or error conditions. Still, the purpose is clear from the name and sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the only parameter 'id' is described as 'VAST 4.2 media file ID'. The description does not add further meaning, such as explaining that this ID is obtained from creation or listing operations, but the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 a single VAST 4.2 media file' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('media file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list/create/update/delete operations. The word 'single' differentiates it from vast42_list_media_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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this to retrieve one media file by ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other media file tools, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of prerequisites.

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