Get File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: the index-only constraint (no arbitrary disk access) and the shape of media results ('path and page/time range, not binary bytes'). It omits error behavior for unindexed paths and any permission or rate-limit context, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose leads and constraints follow. Every sentence adds a distinct, actionable fact.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, what input is valid, and the nature of the return (text vs. media metadata). Return-value detail is legitimately delegated to the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter, and it does: the path must be one already in the index and obtained from search_files, not an arbitrary filesystem path. It still says nothing about accepted path syntax or format (absolute vs. relative), leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return indexed text or media metadata') plus a precise scope constraint ('for a path already in the index'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling left_files by specifying that the path must originate from search_files rather than an arbitrary disk location.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case ('Does not read arbitrary disk paths') and names the source of valid input ('Pass a path from search_files'), which routes the agent to the sibling for discovery and back here for retrieval. Nothing about when this tool applies is left to inference.

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