Get File

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it can return either a URL or content based on the no_redirect parameter, which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for this 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 simple read operation with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what format the content returns in, whether there are size limitations, or authentication requirements. Without an output schema, some additional detail about return values would be helpful for completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the storage ID concept for file_id and implies the URL/content choice for no_redirect, but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('file's URL or content'), specifying it retrieves by storage ID. It distinguishes from siblings like dual_get_object or dual_get_template by focusing specifically on files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other file-related tools like dual_upload_file or dual_delete_file.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other get operations like dual_get_object, or when to use the no_redirect parameter. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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