bitatlas_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 effectively describes key traits: it performs read operations (get metadata and download), decrypts content, handles different file types (UTF-8 for text, base64 for binary), and specifies an authentication requirement (BITATLAS_MASTER_KEY). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or whether metadata includes specific fields like size or timestamps.

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 sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and requirements without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the core functionality and output formats, and the second states the authentication prerequisite.

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 complexity of a tool that retrieves metadata, downloads, and decrypts files, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering essential aspects: it explains the dual functionality, output formats, and authentication need. However, it could be more complete by detailing the metadata structure or potential errors, which would help an agent understand the full context better.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'file_id' documented as 'File UUID.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Get file metadata and download + decrypt the file content'), identifies the resource ('file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'bitatlas_list_files' (which lists files) and 'bitatlas_upload_file' (which uploads files). It goes beyond just restating the name by detailing the dual functionality of metadata retrieval and content decryption.

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 by specifying 'Requires BITATLAS_MASTER_KEY,' which suggests a prerequisite for authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitatlas_list_files' for browsing or 'bitatlas_search' for finding files, nor does it provide exclusions or clear contextual boundaries beyond the key requirement.

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