bundle_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool redacts secrets, returns base64-encoded bytes, and provides an artifact_path for debugging. It also notes that the MCP protocol retrieval avoids filesystem access, adding useful context beyond the bare operation.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a sentence on required inputs, a rationale for returning base64, and a clear return-value list. The 'S3:' prefix is slightly odd, and the base64 return is mentioned twice, but overall the content is relevant and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's 6 required parameters, nested objects, and lack of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, inputs, redaction behavior, and output keys. It does not discuss error conditions or detailed object schemas, but the output schema and input schema partially cover structural details.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It enumerates all six required inputs at a high level ('diff text, metadata dictionary, before and after failure structures, logs, secrets') but does not detail the expected internal structure of metadata or failure objects. This is adequate but not deeply informative.

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 action: 'Bundle artifacts into a redacted zip and return it as base64.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on repository, workspace, or GitHub operations.

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 states required inputs ('The caller must provide the diff text, metadata dictionary, before and after failure structures, and any logs to include') and the redaction purpose, making the use case clear. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this bundling functionality.

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