directus_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information beyond the basic operation. It does not specify error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned metadata object.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence that conveys the core operation without excessive verbosity. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that does not contribute to the agent's understanding of the tool's 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should ideally describe the return value or error conditions, but it only states that metadata is retrieved without detailing what fields are included. It meets the minimum threshold for a simple retrieval operation but leaves significant gaps regarding the response structure.

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, requiring the description to compensate for both parameters. The description mentions 'ID' which clarifies the `id` parameter, but completely omits explanation of the `site` parameter, leaving half of the required inputs undocumented.

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 tool retrieves file metadata using a specific identifier ('by ID'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like `directus_get_file_url` (retrieves URL) and `directus_list_files` (lists multiple files). The verb 'Get' and resource 'file metadata' are specific and unambiguous.

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 fails to provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `directus_get_file_url` or `directus_list_files`. While the term 'metadata' implies the return type, there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' instruction.

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