Docflow Fetch Files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the read-only nature via the GET method and gives a meaningful status legend (0=pending, 1=success, 2=failed, 3=processing) that helps an agent interpret returned results. It does not cover pagination or filtering behavior, but the core safety and result-interpretation traits are present.

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 sentences with no filler; the primary purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: the action, the usage scenario, and the status legend.

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 output schema covers return shape, and the description nails the core purpose plus the key status filter. However, six of seven parameters remain semantically opaque with zero schema descriptions, so constructing filtered queries (by file_id, category, batch_number) would be guesswork. Adequate for a minimal workspace_id-only call, but incomplete for full filtering use.

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 across all 7 parameters. It only explains recognition_status with its value mapping; file_id, category, batch_number, page, and page_size receive no semantic guidance beyond their names and types.

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 — 'Query processed files in a workspace' — augmented by the explicit REST endpoint (GET /file/fetch). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/action tools like docflow_upload_and_extract, docflow_update_file, and docflow_delete_files.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: 'Useful for checking status of previously uploaded files or retrieving results later.' This makes the intended scenario clear, though it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer docflow_retry_files for failed items).

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