get_file_mediainfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, which covers the primary safety trait. However, it adds nothing about prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must belong to the asset), error behavior, or return characteristics. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero filler; the verb and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple getter, though it borders on under-specification rather than intentional economy.

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 tool is simple (2 required params, no enums, no nesting, no annotations, no output schema). The description is adequate for basic invocation, but gaps remain: no output schema means the agent doesn't know the shape of 'mediainfo' results, and the asset_id/file_id relationship is unexplained. Adequate for a low-complexity getter, but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (asset_id, file_id) are already documented as UUIDs in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and importantly does not clarify the relationship between the two required IDs (that the file belongs to the asset). Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('file') with the kind of data returned ('mediainfo/technical metadata'). This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_asset_file and get_file_download_url, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The qualifier 'technical metadata' is clear enough to convey the scope, if slightly vague about what exactly is included.

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 the many similar file-oriented siblings (get_asset_file, get_file_download_url, get_asset_format). An agent must infer from the name that this is the go-to for technical metadata, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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