Files: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation returns metadata (rather than file content), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not describe error handling, authentication requirements, or return format details.

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?

A single six-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple and the input schema is fully documented, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what metadata fields are returned or how errors are handled, leaving the agent to guess the response shape. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'File ID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file metadata') with a scoping qualifier ('by ID'), making it distinct from sibling operations like files_list, files_upload, and files_delete. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or state what the tool is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites are provided. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a file ID is known, with no explicit routing to or away from sibling tools.

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