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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature. The description adds transparency about the returned artifact (file list, signed URL, or inline file content) and warns that re-authoring drops hand-authored files. This goes beyond the basic annotation.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second gives critical usage guidance without fluff. No redundancy or 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 simple fetch operation with no output schema, it sufficiently describes what is returned in both modes. It also adds important context about using the bundle as a starting point. Minor gaps like error handling or output format are not critical given the low complexity.

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 67%, with descriptions for file and version_uuid. The description enriches the file parameter by explaining that it returns that single file's content inline. The project_uuid parameter is self-evident and not described, but the added file semantics lift the score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch a published bundle, either the file list with a signed download URL or a single file's content via the file parameter. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_get_project and build_stage_bundle.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to start from this bundle for any change request on an existing app and warns against re-authoring from scratch. It does not name alternative tools explicitly but the when-to-use guidance is clear and actionable.

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