Get Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: what an upload is, the fields it carries, and the fact that ids are not guessable. The 'Operation class: Read' is somewhat redundant with annotations but not contradictory. This exceeds baseline transparency.

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 three focused sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the function, the second defines what an upload is and its key attributes, and the third gives usage guidance. The 'Operation class: Read' line is slightly redundant with annotations but minor. No fluff or irrelevant detail.

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 simple get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return fields (url, name, mime, size, uploadable_type/uploadable_id), the types of records it can be attached to, and the recommended flow (list first if only name is known). It also clarifies the 404 behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the field list included in the description.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining why 'id' is required and how to obtain it (via list), and it introduces the concept that ids are not guessable. This context enriches the schema's simple 'Numeric Hudu id of the upload' description.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one upload by its numeric id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tool hudu_list_uploads by advising to use the list tool when only a name is known. This makes the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use hudu_list_uploads first if you only know a name — ids are not guessable.' It also provides a behavioral caveat about 404 responses, guiding the user on error interpretation. This is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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