appwrite_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies that metadata (not content) is returned, but omits critical information such as authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or what metadata fields are typically returned.

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 brief with the core action front-loaded. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that provides no value for tool selection or invocation, slightly detracting from an otherwise efficient structure.

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 three undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. While it clarifies the metadata-vs-content distinction, it lacks necessary details about parameter semantics, return structure, or behavioral constraints required for confident tool invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (site, bucket_id, file_id). The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters represent (e.g., that site refers to the Appwrite instance, bucket_id to the storage container, and file_id to the specific file identifier), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for invocation.

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 'Get file metadata' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'file metadata'. The parenthetical '(not content)' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like appwrite_download_file, appwrite_get_file_view, and appwrite_get_file_url that retrieve actual file content.

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 guidance through the '(not content)' caveat, suggesting users should look elsewhere for file content retrieval. However, it fails to explicitly name alternatives (e.g., appwrite_download_file) or provide specific when-to-use scenarios beyond the negative constraint.

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