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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that text files are returned as content directly, while binary files return a download URL. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps set expectations for the response.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one necessary behavioral detail. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the two return modes (direct text vs. download URL), which is critical for the agent to know what to expect. No additional context is needed.

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 describes the 'path' parameter with examples and has 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description does not add any additional detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a file from a specific storage system ('SpaceTime Server storage'), using the verb 'Get' and a defined resource. It also clarifies distinct behavior for text vs binary files. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'check_host' and 'search_host', which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this to retrieve files from SpaceTime Server storage. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated (host management, proxies), so the intended usage is unambiguous. No exclusions are needed for such a specific read operation.

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