files_get

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

The description adds the behavioral detail of a two-step lookup (file_nodes then leaves), which is beyond the default annotations (none provided). However, it does not disclose read-only nature, return format, or error handling, leaving gaps. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise (7 words), front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured to include parameter info or return value, but efficiency earns a high score.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values and failure cases. It mentions lookup strategy but not what is returned (e.g., record object) or behavior if UUID not found. Incomplete for a single-record fetch tool with three parameters.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions UUID in the main purpose, but timeout and database are not described. The schema provides defaults but no meaning. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool fetches one record by UUID, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like files_search by focusing on a single UUID lookup. However, it does not elaborate on what 'file_nodes' and 'leaves' mean, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like files_search or files_corpus_list. The description implies use for single-record retrieval by UUID but lacks when-not-to-use or context. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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