get_item_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dict with success status and a list, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not detail possible failure modes, error handling, or the structure of the file objects, which could be important for an agent.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is useful, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity, though the 'Args' section slightly duplicates the schema.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose, parameter, and return shape. However, it could be more complete by describing the format of the files in the list, but for this simple get operation, it is adequate.

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 already documents item_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of meaning ('The item ID to get files for') that clarifies the parameter's purpose, but it is only a slight enhancement over the schema's minimal 'item_id parameter'.

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 a specific action ('Get all files linked to an item') that identifies both the resource (files) and the relation (linked to an item). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like link_file or get_item, so no ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need to retrieve files attached to an item) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like link_file and unlink_file exist for modifying file associations, yet the description does not contrast with them.

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