bitrix24_im_file_get

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals that images return viewable content while other files return metadata plus a webhook-authenticated download URL. Could add that it's read-only and safe, but current detail is good.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. First sentence states purpose and identifier. Second sentence gives usage context and return behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter, usage scenario, and return types for both image and non-image files. Lacks mention of errors or authentication details beyond 'webhook-authenticated', but overall sufficient for a simple fetch tool.

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 both schema and description describe fileId similarly (numeric disk file ID from chat message files[]). Description adds no extra semantics beyond clarifying the source, which is already in the 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?

Specifically states 'Fetch a single file attached to a Bitrix24 chat message', giving clear verb and resource. Identifies the fileId from a related tool, distinguishing it from siblings like bitrix24_im_post_file and bitrix24_im_chat_messages.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for attachments bitrix24_im_chat_messages didn't inline (non-images, or images past the inline size/count cap)', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also describes what to expect for images vs other file types.

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