mattermost_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. It is transparent about what it returns (metadata only, not file content), which implies a safe read, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded and the input-source note follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 does the necessary work: it enumerates the returned metadata fields and explains how to obtain the required file_id. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single file_id parameter is already documented in the schema with its 26-character format. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get metadata of a file attached to a Mattermost post") and enumerates exactly which metadata fields are returned. This implicitly separates it from mattermost_download_file, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains where the file_id comes from ("file_ids and files in channel history and thread replies"), which is genuine input-provenance guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names mattermost_download_file as the alternative for retrieving content rather than metadata.

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