bundle_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output (download URL) and its inputs, but does not mention whether the operation is safe (read-only), requires authentication, or has side effects. The description's mention of bundle contents adds some context, but behavioral traits beyond the core action are omitted.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every sentence provides essential information about what the tool does and its optional parameter.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description adequately explains the input semantics and the output concept (a download URL). However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., string, JSON), which could be considered a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 50% (theme is described in schema). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'ids' are asset IDs and that each asset results in standalone files plus a composed page. However, it does not elaborate on the numeric constraints (maxItems, minItems) or that theme is an optional asset ID. The description partially compensates for the missing schema description of 'ids'.

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 builds a download URL for a .zip bundle of assets, specifying the bundle's contents (standalone index.html, asset.json, composed page.html) and an optional theme parameter. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_asset or get_embed_snippet, which serve different purposes.

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 prerequisites or contraindications. It only describes the output, not the context of use.

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