Get Mudbase file metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata and lists the fields, but it does not disclose whether the file content is returned (it is not), whether the operation is read-only, whether it errors on missing files, or any access/visibility constraints. The description is accurate but thin on behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the metadata fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 metadata retrieval tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return format, error behavior, or how this differs from getting the file content/download URL. Given the sibling set includes closely related tools, a bit more context would help an agent select it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (fileId, bucketId, projectId) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 'Get' and the resource 'metadata for a single stored file', and enumerates the specific metadata fields (name, size, MIME type, visibility, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mudbase_list_files (which lists files) and mudbase_get_file_download_url (which gets a URL), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage: call this when you need metadata for one file rather than a list or download URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mudbase_list_files or mudbase_get_file_download_url, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as needing the fileId from a prior list call.

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