get_file_report

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

Without annotations, description should disclose key behaviors. It notes 'automatically fetched relationship data', implying additional API calls, but does not explicitly state it's read-only, mention rate limits, or describe any destructive actions. Lack of clarity on side effects or constraints reduces transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and hash types, second lists report contents. No wasted words, front-loaded with clear action. Structure supports quick comprehension.

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 and moderate complexity, description mentions specific report sections (behaviors, dropped files, etc.), which is helpful. However, it omits details on output format, pagination, hash length limits, or whether report is synchronous. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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% (single 'hash' parameter fully described with pattern). Description adds that hash can be MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256, which matches the pattern but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive file analysis report using a hash, specifying hash types (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256) and listing included content (detections, properties, relationships). This distinguishes it from specific siblings like get_file_behaviour_summary or get_file_relationship.

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. While it mentions returning both basic analysis and relationship data, it does not explain when to prefer this over get_file_relationship or other sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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