get_file_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions optional content return, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., file not found), or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word is non-redundant. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation. However, it could mention the user-scoped nature explicitly and note that file_id is required (though schema already indicates this).

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 coverage is 100%, and the description essentially restates the schema descriptions ('File ID', 'Return file content in the response'). It adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'a user-scoped file by ID', and includes the API endpoint. It distinguishes this tool from sibling file tools (e.g., list_files_v2, upload_file_v2) by specifying single file retrieval.

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 implies usage for retrieving a file by ID and optionally its content, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives (e.g., download_file for raw bytes, get_file_image for thumbnails).

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