Show Project Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds no further behavioral details beyond stating it returns a JSON object, which is adequate but not enhancing.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It includes necessary technical details without redundant information. Minor improvement could be removing the explicit mention of 'Required parameters' since schema already indicates that.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with good annotations and high schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value and includes API version/endpoint. The optional pagination parameters are covered by the schema, making the description sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description only mentions required parameters and the endpoint, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. According to the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 retrieves detailed information on an upload, specifying 'File Access & Storage records' and the API endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'show_project' by being upload-specific.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention situations where it should not be used. It only states what it does without any exclusionary or comparative context.

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