Get File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description largely reinforces the safety. It adds valuable context about auth requirements (user-auth mode with active session), error codes (401, 404), and ownership restrictions (not owned by the user), which are beyond the annotations and essential for agents to handle failures 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 compact, with the primary functionality front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and errors. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and it avoids overly technical jargon. It is appropriately sized for an agent to quickly grasp key actions and constraints.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description covers operation modes, auth, errors, and ownership constraints. No output schema exists, so return format guidance is provided. With annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, with a description for `id` that explains its optionality and effect. The tool description adds clarity by stating the return format (array vs single record) that depends on `id`, which is not explicit in the schema. This is a good compensation for any potential ambiguity.

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 the tool's dual function: listing all user files or fetching one by id, backed by the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling ethora-files-upload-v2 and ethora-files-delete-v2 by focusing on reading, and the overall purpose is unmistakable. The verb 'List' and 'fetch' with specific resource and scope make it highly specific.

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 explains when to omit or provide `id` for listing versus single fetch, and states the prerequisite of using `ethora-files-upload-v2` to get a file id. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like `ethora-files-delete-v2` for when—but the deletion sibling is not a read alternative; the guidance is clear for the primary use case, though not exhaustive.

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