Check that course downloads listed in a local manifest.json exist and report their sizes, rejecting external paths; hashes and remote content are not verified.
Comprueba existencia y tamaño de descargas referenciadas por un manifest.json local. Rechaza rutas externas; no verifica hashes ni contenido remoto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral constraints: it rejects external paths and explicitly does not verify hashes or remote content. It does not describe the return shape (a mild gap for a check-style tool).
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?
Two tight sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the limitations follow immediately after.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden it does not meet, and the one input parameter is left undefined. The scope limitations it does provide are useful but the definition is only partially complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 single required parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies what the path points to (the manifest.json itself, or a directory containing it) or its accepted format. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.
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 and resource: verifies existence and size of downloads referenced by a local manifest.json. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read/list/search downloaded-material tools, though it never names an alternative.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose plus two scope exclusions (rejects external paths, does not verify hashes or remote content), which help bound when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to siblings such as blackboard_read_downloaded_material.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.