putput-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' but fails to clarify if this is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., breaking links to the file). Missing critical safety context for a destructive operation.

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?

Extremely efficient at 6 words. Front-loaded with the action verb, no filler content, and appropriately sized for the parameter complexity. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool but lacks safety warnings appropriate for a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema. Missing confirmation of whether deletion is permanent or soft-delete.

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 description coverage is 100% ('id' is fully described as 'File ID to delete'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description 'by ID' adds no semantic value beyond the schema and provides no format examples or constraints.

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 provides a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('uploaded file') with specific scoping ('by ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings (e.g., contrasting with archive operations or distinguishing from upload_file), which keeps it from a 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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., file not in use), or warnings about irreversibility. Zero guidance on usage context.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., file not found), whether this operation is read-only, or what the response format contains.

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?

Extremely concise at 5 words with no redundant text. However, front-loading is minimal—would benefit from one additional sentence explaining return value or error conditions.

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?

Tool has low complexity (1 param) but lacks output schema. Description mentions 'details' without elaborating what information is returned, leaving a gap in completeness for a read 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage with 'File ID to look up'. Description adds no parameter context, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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?

Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'file', and includes 'specific' which distinguishes from sibling 'list_files'. However, 'details' is vague and doesn't specify what information is returned.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus siblings like list_files (e.g., 'use when you know the file ID') or what prerequisites exist.

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 provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description fails to explain the pagination model despite cursor and limit parameters being present, does not describe return values, and omits any rate limit or permission context.

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?

Extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the verb. However, brevity crosses into underspecification given the presence of pagination parameters that require behavioral explanation.

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?

Incomplete for a paginated listing tool. Missing explanation of the pagination cursor pattern, return value structure (file objects vs IDs), and the fact that all parameters are optional. No output schema exists to compensate for these omissions.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'optional filtering' which maps to the prefix parameter, but the schema already documents this as 'Filter by prefix'. Adds minimal semantic value beyond what the well-documented schema provides.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and resource 'uploaded files', with mention of optional filtering. However, it does not differentiate from sibling get_file_info (which presumably retrieves a specific file's metadata) or clarify that this returns multiple items versus a single record.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_file_info (for specific file lookup) or how it relates to the upload workflow. No mention of prerequisites or typical usage patterns.

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 must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the destination storage name ('PutPut storage') but fails to disclose mutation behavior (overwrites existing files?), synchronization model, return values, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded verb, no冗余 words. Structure efficiently conveys the core operation, source, and destination. However, brevity comes at the cost of missing critical behavioral context.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with nested metadata objects and visibility controls, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits return value information (critical given no output schema), file overwrite behavior, and the significance of the 'PutPut storage' destination.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all parameters. The description adds minimal context by reinforcing the source ('from a URL') and destination ('PutPut storage'), meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Upload') with clear resource ('file'), source ('from a URL'), and destination ('to PutPut storage'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like delete_file or list_files by specifying the upload action and external URL source.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., valid URL requirements), or when to use sibling tools like list_files to check for existing files first. The description states what it does but not when to use it.

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