get_disclosure_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: it does not write to disk, which contrasts with download_file. Beyond that it is silent on authentication needs, whether remote content is fetched, rate limits, or failure behavior, so substantial behavioral ground is uncovered.

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?

A single dense sentence that leads with the purpose and closes with the key side-effect disclaimer; no filler, nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value structure need not be explained. But four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage plus the absence of annotations means the definition leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters (disclosure_index, action, attachment_id, file_selector). The description hints at the 'action' modes (link / metadata / verified content) but never maps them to parameter values and says nothing about attachment_id, file_selector defaults, or what the disclosure_index refers to.

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 pairs a specific verb ('getirir') with a specific resource ('bildirim dosyası') and enumerates the three retrievable artifacts: link, metadata, and verified content. It also distinguishes itself from the file-download sibling by stating it does not write to disk, so an agent can separate it from download_file without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this when it wants a link, metadata, or verified content instead of a downloaded file. However, no sibling tool (download_file, get_disclosure) is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given, leaving the choice to inference.

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