workiva_wdata_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get a Wdata file' without mentioning read-only nature, response format, error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects. The absence of these details means the agent cannot anticipate consequences beyond the basic action.

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 brief, with the purpose in one sentence and the parameter in a simple Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the Args block is redundant with the schema. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but this conciseness comes at the expense of useful detail.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is too minimal to be complete. It lacks context about when to use this operation in the Wdata workflow, what distinguishes it from other Wdata file tools, and any behavioral caveats. The agent would likely need external knowledge to use it correctly beyond the basic 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 has one parameter (file_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'The Wdata file ID', which is nearly identical to the schema title 'File Id' and provides no extra meaning about format, type, or how to obtain the ID. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a Wdata file' which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (Wdata file), differentiating it from sibling tools like list, upload, delete, or query operations. It is concise and directly names the object of the operation, though it does not elaborate on what 'get' entails (metadata vs. content).

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_wdata_list_files or workiva_get_file. The description only states the basic function and parameter, leaving the agent without contextual cues about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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