get_file_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (str) and content ('formatted analysis report with detection summary and relationships'), which is helpful. However, it does not cover failure modes, what happens with an unknown hash, or whether external lookups are involved. This is basic transparency, not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place with 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return content. It does not elaborate on error cases or usage scenarios, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure in detail.

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 only says 'File Hash' with 0% coverage, so the description's clarification that it accepts MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256 is essential and adds meaningful semantics. It could include examples or mention accepted formats, but for a single required parameter, this is adequate and more than the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive file analysis report') with the method ('using its hash'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_url_report and get_ip_report by specifying 'file' and 'hash', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a file hash and want a detailed report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the 'using its hash' wording provide enough contextual guidance. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', so not a 5.

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