Get a signed download URL for a Mudbase file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the URL is 'time-limited' and 'signed', and that it works for 'private or public' files, providing some insight. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., plain string vs. JSON), nor does it mention error handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure gap.

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 a single, concise sentence (21 words) that clearly conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only essential details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must clarify the return value and behavior. It implies a URL is returned but does not specify its format or structure. It also omits potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must exist). While the parameter schema is comprehensive, the overall context for an agent is only partially complete given the simplicity of the operation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including defaults and bounds for expiresIn. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the resource ('signed URL') and context ('download a private or public file from Mudbase storage'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mudbase_get_file (likely returns file content) and upload/delete. The title reinforces the purpose as obtaining a download URL.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mudbase_get_file). It does not state under what conditions generating a signed URL is preferred over directly fetching the file, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it. An agent must infer the use case from the description alone.

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