get_file

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already establish the tool as non-destructive and read-only. The description adds that a 404 error occurs for invalid file_id, which is useful but minimal additional behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences plus a structured arguments/returns section, all within a concise paragraph. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately orients the user.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, return value (with a JSON field list), and error behavior. It is complete and self-contained, requiring no additional context from siblings or other sources.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the required file_id parameter (numeric, from list_files), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the optional account parameter is not mentioned, leaving it unexplained. This partial coverage justifies a score of 3.

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 'Retrieve full metadata for a single File Manager file', specifying the verb and resource. It further details what metadata includes (hosted URL, dimensions, folder) and distinguishes from siblings like list_files and delete_file. The description fully communicates the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: 'Use when you have a file_id (from list_files) and need its hosted URL, dimensions, or folder.' It also directs users to list_files for discovery. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios, the guidance is clear and practical.

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