get_file_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral split (permanent URL for public files vs temporary presigned URL for private files). It omits auth/permission requirements, error behavior for a missing or inaccessible file, and whether the URL is reusable once issued.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the central behavior but leaves gaps around failure modes and the scope of expiresIn. Adequate but with clear room to say more.

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%, so filename and expiresIn are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about parameters and does not clarify that expiresIn only governs the private/presigned case.

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 and resource ('Get a ... URL for a file') and cleanly separates the two output modes by file visibility. It is distinguishable from the save_*/list_files siblings, though it never names them, so it lands one step 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving a link to an existing file, and that the result type depends on file visibility. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no stated prerequisites.

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