get-company-file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a read-only metadata retrieval rather than a content download or mutation. 'Get metadata' provides that basic behavioral signal, but it does not disclose error handling, permissions, or whether the file must belong to the authenticated company. For a simple getter this is minimally transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and scope immediately and every word contributes.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects), and the description covers the basic call. However, there is no output schema, so a fuller description of what metadata fields are returned would improve completeness; for now, agents must infer the response shape from 'metadata'.

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 100%, and the fileId parameter is already documented as a numeric string. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'specific company file', so the schema carries the weight; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a specific company file'), and 'specific' contrasts with sibling list-company-files. However, it doesn't explicitly name or distinguish alternatives like list-company-files or get-employee-files, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The phrasing 'for a specific company file' implies this is the single-item lookup counterpart to list-company-files, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over siblings. An agent can infer usage from the input schema requiring a fileId, but no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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