b24_disk_file_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose the key error semantics (ACCESS_DENIED = no task membership) plus an escalation instruction. However, it does not discuss optional webhook behavior, download URL properties, or whether the operation is strictly read-only; the schema hints at read-only but the description does not reinforce it.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the output, the second gives the required parameter source, and the third gives actionable error handling. It is dense, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 simple metadata getter, the description covers the core operational need: what is returned, where the required file_id comes from, and how to handle the most likely error. Missing nuances are the optional webhook parameters and a direct pointer to b24_disk_file_content for retrieving actual file bytes, but these are secondary to the common task-chat-attachment flow.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning above the schema by specifying the exact source of file_id via im.dialog.messages.get → FILE_ID. The personal_webhook is already described in the schema. The webhook_url parameter remains undocumented, but the required parameter's provenance is significantly clarified.

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 a specific output: file metadata and DOWNLOAD_URL, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling b24_disk_file_content (file bytes) and b24_disk_file_upload. Even without repeating the 'get' verb, the resource and result are unambiguous.

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 gives a concrete usage context: task chat attachments, with an explicit data flow im.dialog.messages.get → FILE_ID. It also explains the ACCESS_DENIED condition and instructs forwarding the error to an operator. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or route to sibling tools, but the provided context is clear enough.

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