grocy_files_get

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains base64 encoding, that small files return text or base64 while large files return size only, and that server paths are omitted.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds useful information. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement.

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 description covers the basic download action and important return-shape behavior for small versus large files. However, with five parameters and low schema description coverage, it leaves three optional parameters unexplained, which is a gap for an agent trying to use image-resizing or forced-content options correctly.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that file_name is the plain name and mentions base64 encoding, but does not explain group semantics beyond the enum, nor does it explain best_fit_width, best_fit_height, or force_serve_as.

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 and resource ('Download a file') and adds the endpoint path, making it clear this is a file retrieval tool. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like grocy_files_put and grocy_files_delete, but does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grocy_files_put or grocy_files_delete. Usage is only implied by the word 'Download' and the endpoint path.

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