wetrack_get_upload_instructions

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 that the tool only provides instructions and does not perform the upload, and explains the MCP limitation that necessitates this tool. It does not detail the output structure, but for a simple informational tool, this is adequate transparency.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides the rationale. Every word earns its place.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to call it. It clearly states the tool's role in the upload workflow.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description adds no parameter-related information because none exist. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get instructions' and the resource 'how to upload files to WeTrack via S3'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wetrack_get_upload_presign_url (which likely provides a presigned URL) and wetrack_add_project_file (which actually adds a file) by focusing on the instructional workflow.

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 explains the context: 'Since MCP cannot directly stream binary files, this tool explains the complete upload workflow so you can guide the user correctly.' This implies when to use it—when the user needs guidance on uploading because direct streaming is impossible. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the rationale is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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