Prepare exact artifact download

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true, etc.), the description discloses important behaviors: the URL expires in five minutes, it targets a single immutable version, and cached bytes never enter MCP model output. This adds meaningful context about side effects and privacy, going beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is efficiently written.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral guarantee, but lacks details about the return value (e.g., does it return just the URL or a structured object?) and does not specify prerequisites such as whether the artifact must already exist. For a simple 3-param tool with no output schema, this is adequate but with notable gaps.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the three parameters, but it does not. It mentions 'one immutable artifact version' but never clarifies the distinct roles of project_id, artifact_id, and artifact_version_id, nor their relationship. This leaves the agent to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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's primary action: 'Create a five-minute download URL for one immutable artifact version.' This is a specific verb (create), resource (artifact download URL), and scope (one immutable artifact version). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_artifact by emphasizing the download URL creation and the privacy guarantee about bytes not entering model output.

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 a use case (downloading an artifact without exposing bytes to the model) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_version_export or get_artifact. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison, so the guidance is only implied, not clearly stated.

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