Tendem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool downloads and saves to a file, which implies a write operation to the local filesystem, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling for invalid paths, or network/rate limits. The description adds basic context about artifact references but lacks crucial operational details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The artifact reference example and parameter explanations are useful, though the structure could be slightly tighter (e.g., integrating the example more seamlessly). Every sentence adds value without 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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and return values, but as a file-writing tool with no annotations, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects like safety warnings or filesystem interactions. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose: task_id as 'The Tendem task ID (UUID)', artifact_id as 'The artifact ID (UUID) from the agents-reference block', and path as 'The file path where the artifact should be saved'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., path syntax).

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 specific action ('Download artifact content') on specific resources ('from a Tendem task and save to a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_task which retrieve metadata rather than downloading content. It provides concrete examples of artifact references in canvas content.

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 usage when you need to download artifact content from a Tendem task, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_task_result (which might retrieve results rather than artifacts) or other sibling tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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