Get a file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries most of the burden and does well by disclosing two key behaviors: text/base64 return format and truncation for large files. It could add error behavior, but for a single-parameter read tool this is solid coverage.

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 sentences, no filler, with the essential encoding behavior and truncation caveat front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors an agent needs: encoding, truncation, and pointer to the alternative. It does not discuss error cases, but the tool's complexity is low and the description is largely complete on its own.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the path parameter, so the description must compensate, but it adds no detail about path format, relative vs. absolute paths, or file resolution. The meaning of 'path' is inferable from the parameter name, but the description itself contributes nothing to parameter semantics.

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 'Read a file back,' identifies the resource, and explains the return encoding (text for text types, base64 otherwise). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by flagging truncation and pointing to list_files for the full 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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool, including the important large-file limitation and the explicit alternative: 'use the URL from list_files for the whole thing.' It does not enumerate exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for a simple read operation.

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