get_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds a non-obvious constraint: created_by_app is true only for files this app created, and those are the only files it can modify. It does not cover auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits, but the permission/modifiability detail is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the key caveat about app-created files. Every clause earns its place with zero waste.

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 single-parameter read tool, the definition is nearly sufficient, but without an output schema it only names one returned field (created_by_app) and does not indicate what other metadata is included or how missing files are handled. The context is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent relying on return values.

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 the sole parameter (file_id) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that and only mentions created_by_app, which is a return field rather than an input. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already 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 resource ('normalized metadata for one Drive file'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from listing tools like search_files and content-fetching tools like download_file because it targets metadata for a single file, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies a retrieval use case for file metadata, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing among alternatives like search_files or download_file. The usage context is only inferable from the verb and resource.

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