llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden and delivers comprehensively: it specifies the return format (base64-encoded for binary files vs plain text), declares safety characteristics ('Read-only, no side effects'), and states the required authorization scope ('Requires scope: sessions:read').

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?

Every sentence earns its place: (1) core purpose and input, (2) return format specifics, (3) usage context with examples, (4) sibling differentiation with parameter hints, (5) safety and auth requirements. Information is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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 single-parameter tool lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (encoding rules for binary vs text), covers authentication requirements, distinguishes from siblings, and describes the operation's side-effect profile. No gaps remain for the agent to incorrectly invoke the tool.

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% with the single parameter 'path' fully documented as 'Document storage path'. The description references 'storage path' but does not add semantic clarification, examples, or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('document artifact') and immediately specifies the input mechanism ('by its storage path'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'session-download', clarifying that this tool is for direct path access while session-download is for session-scoped artifacts.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you have the storage path') and explicitly names the sibling alternative 'session-download' for different use cases ('downloading artifacts from a specific session'), including the alternative's parameter signature ('which takes a session ID and artifact key').

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