retrieve_media_file

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return value (base64 or false), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., permission issues), file size limits, or performance implications. The behavior is fairly transparent for a simple retrieval but lacks some detail.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately states the return format. Perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about the expected format of the filename (relative vs absolute, supported file types) and does not leverage the output schema to explain the structure of the base64 result. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description does not add meaning to the 'filename' parameter beyond its name. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is higher. The description could clarify whether the filename is relative to the media directory or requires a path. However, it does state the output type and error indicator, providing some context. Score is baseline due to lack of parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve a media file's contents'), the resource ('media file'), and the output format ('as base64'). It also specifies the edge case of returning false if not found. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'store_media_file' and 'delete_media_file'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'list_media_files' can be used to verify existence first, or that 'store_media_file' is for uploading. The description only states the function without contextual usage.

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