get_ldr_artifact

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the return is exact file bytes as base64 with a SHA-256 digest and a download link, and reads are confined to the configured output directory (a path-scoping guarantee). It doesn't mention size limits or failure behavior for a missing file, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the argument rule, then the return shape/normalization, then the use condition — no filler sentences. Slightly dense in the middle paragraph but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return format (base64 bytes + SHA-256 + download link), and it covers the one required parameter's naming rule. What's missing is only edge behavior (missing artifact, oversized files), which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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 0% — the single property has only a title, no description — so the description must carry the burden. It does: 'Use the original output_name, including .ldr' tells the agent the value must match the generated artifact name and must retain the extension, which is non-obvious from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve a generated .ldr as an embedded MCP binary resource and download link'), which is precise enough to act on. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as read_ldr, export_ldr, or inspect_ldr, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

Gives a real usage condition: 'Useful when the client cannot access local server paths or cannot invoke resources/read directly,' which is exactly the situation that selects this tool over the resource-read path. It stops short of naming sibling tools (read_ldr, export_ldr) as alternatives or exclusions.

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