ghl_file_get_by_slug

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: it requires a sub-account token, the files.readonly scope, and the v3 version header. It stops short of saying what happens on an expired or invalid slug.

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 key fact (slug → file) is front-loaded, but 'Get File' / 'Get the file by slug' restates the name and title, and the endpoint/source-file metadata is partly scaffolding. It is short enough not to be harmful but has redundancy.

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?

Auth scope, endpoint and HTTP method make it callable, which is good for a one-parameter read tool. With no output schema, however, the description never characterizes the returned file object or its failure modes, leaving a gap for an agent that needs to use the result.

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% and the schema already describes slug as a share-link slug with an example, so the description's mention of the slug adds no syntax or format detail beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: resolves a share-link slug to the file, with the concrete endpoint GET /files/d/{slug}. It is distinguishable from the many list/get siblings because it is keyed on a slug rather than an internal id, though it never names a sibling such as ghl_kb_get_file_by_id to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'resolves a share-link slug' suggests you need a slug in hand, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over id-based lookups or what to do when the slug is unknown. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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