Brode.io

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It openly discloses async behavior ('Returns a job_id; waits up to wait_seconds for completion'), the 20 MB file limit, the quota consumption, and the input_key requirement. It does not describe failure modes or error responses, but it covers the key operational traits an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: formats, upload procedure, size limit, behavioral warning, return behavior, and quota. The purpose is front-loaded and the critical instructions are placed early. The curl example adds length but is essential operational detail rather than filler.

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 tool with five parameters, nested options, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: upload, conversion, wait behavior, and resource consumption. It could mention how to retrieve results via siblings like brode_download or brode_job_status, but those sibling tools are visible and the job_id handoff strongly implies the next step.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema. It clarifies that input_key must come from the specific upload endpoint, groups output formats into vector vs embroidery categories, and explains wait_seconds behavior in the conversion flow. This helps an agent reason about how the parameters fit together.

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 resource: 'Convert a raster image ... to a vector format ... or a machine embroidery file.' It explicitly lists acceptable input and output formats, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like brode_download, brode_job_status, and brode_presets by describing a conversion-specific responsibility.

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 strong practical guidance: upload the file once via the provided curl command, pass the returned input_key, and wait for completion. It also warns not to read, compress, or base64 the image. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for download or status checking, but the workflow context and sibling names make the intended usage clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns an absolute URL rather than the file itself, requires an 'Authorization: Bearer' header when fetching, returns filename/MIME/size, and never returns base64 due to tool-result budget limits. It does not discuss error cases, but the key operational behavior is well covered.

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 dense but front-loaded: it states the object, lists variants with formats, explains the return type and auth requirement, and closes with the base64 limitation. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, but the description fully explains what the agent receives (absolute URL, filename, MIME type, size), how to access the file (Authorization header, curl example), and which file types are available under which conditions. An agent can correctly invoke this tool from the description alone.

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 documents the 'file' enum and default, but the description adds concrete meaning: preview is a PNG rendering, worksheet is an embroidery thread color chart PDF, and stitches is a stitch trace JSON. It also frames job_id as identifying the completed conversion whose file is being downloaded, which is adequate despite the schema not describing job_id beyond its type.

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: 'Download a completed conversion's file', then enumerates exactly which artifacts are available (output, preview, worksheet, stitches). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like brode_convert, brode_job_status, and brode_presets by action and resource.

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?

Scoping is clear: the tool is for completed conversions, and availability constraints are stated explicitly (preview/worksheet/stitches only exist for completed jobs; worksheet/stitches only for embroidery formats). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a 'when not to use' clause, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate this is a read-only lookup ('Get'), names the possible job states, and mentions progress/result metadata. It does not disclose polling semantics, failure behavior, or whether repeated calls have side effects, though the absence of such notes is less critical for a simple status endpoint.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds useful status enumeration and result metadata without any filler.

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 status look-up, the description covers the core purpose and return highlights, but it omits important usage context: how job_id is obtained, that this is a polling operation after brode_convert, and when a job can be considered final. Sibling tool names imply this flow but do not make it explicit.

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 has one required job_id with a UUID format, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. The description does not explain where job_id comes from, what it refers to beyond 'conversion job', or any constraints. The natural meaning of 'job_id' is understandable, but the description adds essentially no parameter-level guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('status of a conversion job'), and it enumerates the possible states: queued, processing, completed, failed. It also mentions progress stage and result metadata, making it clearly distinct from the sibling conversion, download, and preset tools.

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 implies this is a polling/status-check tool, likely used after brode_convert and before the job can be downloaded. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus brode_download, nor does it say that job_id must come from a prior conversion call.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' discloses that it is a read-only, informational operation, but it does not describe the return format, whether the list is exhaustive, or if any special prerequisites exist. It is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that directly states what is listed and mentions the added guidance. There is no redundant or vague wording; it is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 simple, parameterless reference tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it specifies what is listed (presets, output formats, conversion options) and that guidance is included. It does not explicitly describe the output structure, but that is largely implied by the word 'List'.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details; it only describes the tool's output, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('Brode presets, output formats and common conversion options'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (brode_convert, brode_download, brode_job_status). It states exactly what the tool provides, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'with guidance for choosing' gives clear context that the tool helps users select presets/formats/options, implying it should be used before a conversion task. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases, but the usage context is clear enough.

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