get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the tool gets a file, with no disclosure of authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a read operation.

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 extremely concise but lacks structure; it is a single line plus an 'Args' block. While short, it is under-specified and does not earn its space with valuable information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides minimal but adequate context for a basic retrieval. However, it omits details on return format, error handling, and usage context, leaving gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the docstring's 'Args' section merely repeats the parameter names and types with minimal context ('Course ID', 'File ID'). It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('a file'), and the means to identify it ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files (which retrieves multiple files) and other get tools (get_assignment, etc.) by focusing on file retrieval.

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 implies usage when you have a specific file ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_files) or provide any usage exclusions or prerequisites.

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