get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the operation is a read ('get') and clarifies that it returns metadata rather than file content, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, authentication needs, or side-effect-free behavior explicitly.

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 front-loaded sentence that directly states the essential action, resource, and parameter. No filler or redundant words.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description plus the schema's required fileId provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool. The lack of explicit return-field details is acceptable given the simple nature of the operation.

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 input schema already describes fileId as 'ID файла' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the ID is the lookup key ('по ID'), but adds no new constraints or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Получить' / get), the resource ('метаданные файла' / file metadata), and the lookup mechanism ('по ID' / by ID). This differentiates it from siblings like upload_file_from_url and get_task by specifying it returns metadata rather than file content or other entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback tools, or exclusions. For a simple getter, the use case is implied but not articulated.

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