yaaif_file_get_extracted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a GET, that file_id accepts a UUID or ADK artifact filename, and that version omit/0 means latest. It does not cover response shape, error behavior, or permissions, but for a read-style fetch the provided constraints are meaningful. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every clause adds information: endpoint, identifier forms, and version semantics. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 three-parameter fetch with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the required parameter and the historical-version parameter, and indicates the returned data is extracted text. It falls short on session_id semantics and does not say what happens for missing or unknown files or how large text payloads are returned, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 schema provides zero property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains file_id's accepted forms and version's historical-revision semantics, which are not inferable from the schema alone. However, session_id is left completely unexplained, a notable gap at 0% 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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Fetch extracted text') and names the underlying endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with file-related siblings like yaaif_file_load_context or yaaif_files_list, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It gives useful identifier and version hints, but does not tell an agent when to choose this over siblings such as yaaif_file_load_context, yaaif_file_artifact_versions, or yaaif_files_search.

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