openwebui_get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns and explicitly notes it does not return file content, which is a key behavioral trait. It stops short of mentioning error conditions or access requirements, but for a simple metadata getter this is solid coverage.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, then lists return fields and a key exclusion. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the caller needs to know: what the tool does, what fields it returns, and that it does not return content. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter 'id' with description 'File ID' (100% schema coverage), so the description adds little beyond that. The phrase 'specific uploaded file' loosely connects the id to the operation, but no additional format or constraints are provided.

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 tool retrieves metadata for a specific uploaded file, enumerating the exact fields returned (name, size, content type, creation date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files by targeting a single file and explicitly excluding file content.

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 description makes the use case clear: use when you need metadata for a specific file, not when you need file content ('Does not return file content'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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