get_file

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it writes a local file (non-destructive to DUT), refuses existing local target unless overwrite=True (pinned ToolError), and requires parent directory to exist. It also specifies the return structure, exceeding what annotations offer.

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 four sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the core purpose, then details constraints and return type. Slightly verbose with the 'NOT read-only' clause, but that nuance is useful given annotations. No fluff.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (acquired place, parent directory exists), conditional behavior (overwrite), return format, and non-destructive characterization. For a file-copy tool, it is complete and self-sufficient even without the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it explains place (as 'acquired place'), remote_path (source), local_path (target), and overwrite behavior. Each parameter's role is made clear, and the overwrite default behavior is described.

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 'Copy remote_path from an acquired place to local_path (scp)', a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like put_file (which does the reverse). The scp analogy and 'acquired place' clarify the context.

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 by explaining the copy direction and prerequisites (acquired place, parent directory must exist), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool. No exclusions or comparison with siblings beyond the scp hint.

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