Scenario.com MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the batch limit. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, response format (e.g., link expiration), or what happens if the limit is exceeded. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Request a link to batch download assets') and includes a key constraint ('batch limited to 1000 assets'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves significant data processing and returns a download link, more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't explain any parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'query' or 'options' contain, how to use 'modelIds', 'inferenceIds', 'assetIds', or the purpose of 'fileNameTemplate' and 'flat'. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Request a link to batch download') and resource ('assets'), with a specific constraint ('batch limited to 1000 assets'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-assets' (which likely lists assets) and 'post-download-model' (which downloads models), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-download-assets' (which might retrieve download status).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to sibling tools like 'get-download-assets' or 'post-asset-get-bulk', or specify scenarios where batch downloading is appropriate over individual downloads.

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