gradescope_download_submission_file

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

The description usefully clarifies that no Gradescope state is modified and that the side effect is a local file on the MCP server host — context that reconciles the contradictory-looking readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false. It omits, however, what happens when the destination file already exists, which is exactly what the undocumented 'overwrite' parameter controls.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the side-effect clarification, then the parameter provenance hint. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the local-vs-remote side effect is covered. But for a file-writing tool the description leaves the overwrite collision behavior and the three ID parameters unexplained, which is a real gap at 0% schema coverage.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially does so: it explains the provenance of file_ref and implies destination_dir, but says nothing about course_id/assignment_id/submission_id or the overwrite flag's behavior.

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 (Download) and resource (the authenticated student's own submitted file) with the scope qualifier 'own', which distinguishes it from sibling gradescope_get_submission_files, which lists files rather than fetching one. The final sentence further routes the agent to the right sibling for obtaining file_ref.

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?

It tells the agent where file_ref comes from ('comes from gradescope_get_submission_files'), which is the key precondition for calling this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., bulk download vs single file) but gives clear context.

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