get_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavior beyond that: text files are returned as text, image files as viewable images, and other binary files as metadata. It also clarifies the path convention, giving the agent the operational detail it needs to use the tool correctly.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then uses compact Args/Returns sections to add necessary detail. No sentence is redundant, and the file-type behavior is useful rather than padding.

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 read tool with safety annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains path semantics, return types per category, and the unsupported-binary fallback. Minor omissions like error cases or permission requirements are acceptable here because this is a simple read-only operation and the annotations already convey the safety profile.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'path: File path relative to user's root. Example: "Documents/notes.md"'. This fully explains the single required parameter, including path convention and a concrete example.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a file's content from Nextcloud.' It further clarifies behavior by file type (text, image, binary metadata), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_directory, search_files, upload_file, and copy_file. This is enough for an agent to know exactly what get_file retrieves.

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?

It clearly establishes the use case — reading a file's content by path relative to the user's root — but it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions such as 'use list_directory to browse files.' The context is clear, but the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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