get_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by enumerating the exact metadata fields returned (url, mime_type, size, width, height, variants, purpose, source_url, timestamps). This supplements the annotation without contradiction, though it does not cover edge cases like errors or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists return fields. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and expected output fields. An agent has all necessary information to invoke this tool correctly without further ambiguity.

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 fully describes the fileId parameter with a format hint (starts with file_), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action (retrieve) and the resource (file metadata by id), and lists the return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file_from_url and delete_file, which operate on the same resource but with different purposes.

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 makes it unambiguous that this tool is for fetching metadata, so an agent knows when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the distinct resource (file vs. pass/template) makes routing obvious.

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