appwrite_get_file_view

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral trait: base64 encoding of returned data. However, lacks other important behavioral details like file size limits, streaming behavior, error responses, or authentication requirements typical for file retrieval operations.

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?

Compact two-sentence structure front-loaded with purpose. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but doesn't significantly impede readability. No wasted words beyond the tag.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal viable information (action, format, scope) but leaves significant gaps regarding parameter semantics, error handling, and operational constraints expected for a file retrieval tool.

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% (site, bucket_id, file_id are undocumented strings). Description mentions 'file content' implying file_id but fails to explain bucket_id, site, or their relationships. With zero coverage, the description inadequately compensates for missing 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?

States specific verb+resource ('Get file content') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'for viewing in browser' and 'Returns base64 encoded data.' This differentiates it from appwrite_get_file (likely metadata), appwrite_get_file_url (returns URL string), and appwrite_download_file (likely file download disposition), though explicit sibling comparison is absent.

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?

Provides implied usage context via 'viewing in browser' and 'base64 encoded data,' suggesting when to use this (inline display) versus alternatives. However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs when not to use' guidance or prerequisite conditions (e.g., file size limits).

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