get_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get detailed information' and provides no context about whether this is read-only, what metadata fields are returned, whether deleted files cause errors, or any permissions needed. The verb 'get' implies read behavior, but the description adds little transparency beyond common sense.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the core operation with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could earn a 5 with more substantive detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without a clear picture of what 'detailed information' actually includes. The tool name and parameter identify the target file, but the lack of return-value specifics and edge-case handling makes the description incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 already documents the sole parameter as 'File ID (e.g., F1234567890)' with 100% coverage. The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific detail, but the schema fully covers semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a Slack file.' It unambiguously identifies the operation as retrieving metadata for a single file, distinct from sibling tools like list_files, delete_file, or upload_file.

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 the tool is used when you need details about a specific file identified by its file ID, and the context signals show a single required 'file' parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_files or get_file_info vs. search, nor does it mention when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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