workiva_get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without specifying what details are returned, error behavior for invalid IDs, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, the lack of this context is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise, with a clear first sentence and a single parameter clarification. No unnecessary words or repeated schema information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value details are not needed. However, the description lacks any context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and 'details' is vague. It is minimally adequate but does not fully support an agent's decision-making in a large sibling tool set.

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 description adds 'The file UUID' for file_id, clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's generic string type. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and this is the only semantic provided. It helps but is minimal for a single parameter.

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 states 'Get details for a specific file by ID', clearly identifying the action (get), resource (file), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like workiva_list_files (list multiple) and workiva_create_file (create), and from workiva_wdata_get_file which operates on a different file type.

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 implies usage when you need details for a specific file ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It provides minimal context about selecting this tool over similar ones like workiva_get_document or workiva_list_files.

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