Project Download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key caveat that decompilation is lossy in layout terms and states that the tool 'makes the result active.' It also implies network use by mentioning pulling from scratch.mit.edu. It could say more about filesystem writes or state changes, but the most important behavioral warning is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then source-mode guidance, then a brief caveat. Every sentence carries useful information with 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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema available, the description covers the main operational context well: what the tool does, how to choose a source, and the key decompilation caveat. It does not explicitly mention the required `path` parameter's role, but the schema already documents that clearly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between `project_id` and `sb3_path` as alternative sources. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions and clarifies the either/or usage pattern.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it decompiles a Scratch project into editable goboscript source and makes it active. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like project_open, project_new, or sb3_open_project, which do not focus on decompilation into goboscript.

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 gives clear context and explicit input-mode guidance: use `project_id` for scratch.mit.edu projects or `sb3_path` for local .sb3 files. However, it does not explicitly say when this tool should be chosen over related siblings or when it should not be used.

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