get_file_url

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 a download URL or error message, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the URL format entails (e.g., temporary, authenticated). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential security implications.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more front-loaded by integrating the return info into the main description for faster scanning.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. Without annotations, it should cover more behavioral aspects like error handling or security notes, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe 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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that 'path' is a 'File path to download', clarifying its purpose, but doesn't explain format (e.g., absolute vs. relative), constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('download URL for a file'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_screenshot' or 'get_screen_xml', which also retrieve data but for different resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or how it differs from other file-related tools like 'list_files' or 'delete_file', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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