mcp-ToseaAI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a download URL, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, whether the URL is temporary or permanent, or any side effects (e.g., if this action logs or updates metadata). The description is minimal and lacks critical 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and resource efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., URL format, expiration), how errors are handled, or dependencies on other tools (like needing an export first). For a tool that likely involves file operations and URLs, more context is needed for effective use.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'an existing exported file' but doesn't explain the three required parameters (presentation_id, export_type, filename) or their relationships (e.g., that filename might need to match the export). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's structure and enums.

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 ('Get a fresh download URL') and the resource ('for an existing exported file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tosea_export_presentation' or 'tosea_list_export_files', which might involve similar export-related operations, so it misses full differentiation.

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., that an export must already exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'tosea_export_presentation' (which might create exports) or 'tosea_list_export_files' (which might list them). Usage is implied but not explicit.

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