monday-get-item-files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'Get files' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, response format, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It includes helpful examples (PDFs, documents, images, etc.) that add clarity without verbosity, making it appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without structured data.

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%, with the single parameter 'itemId' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'files attached to a Monday.com item', with examples of file types (PDFs, documents, images, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-get-item-updates' or 'monday-get-update-files' by specifying item files rather than updates or other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'monday-get-doc-content' which might involve files in docs.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an item ID), exclusions (e.g., not for board-level files), or compare to siblings like 'monday-get-update-files' for files on updates. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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