webdav_get_remote_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieve content') but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., full file download, streaming). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with remote servers.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of remote file operations, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, error handling, return format, or differentiation from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic context about what 'path' represents (e.g., absolute path, URL format, encoding requirements), so it's scored lower at 3.

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 content') and resource ('from a file stored on a remote WebDAV server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'webdav_read_remote_file' or 'webdav_range_request', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for reading files (e.g., 'webdav_read_remote_file', 'webdav_range_request', 'webdav_read_multiple_files'), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval method is preferred or what distinguishes it.

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