growwer_download_order_briefingRetrieve the file attached to a post order briefing by ID to access the referenced document.
Use this when the user needs the file they attached to the briefing of one of their post orders: returns the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation 'returns the file,' but it does not explain auth requirements, error behavior, or file format. With annotations carrying the behavioral basics, this is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence that is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a simple download tool, though the closing 'returns the file' is slightly redundant and the title/description terminology mismatch reduces precision.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return type. It remains incomplete because it does not clarify the id parameter or differentiate the tool from similar download siblings, which matters for correct selection.
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 only parameter is 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the id refers to one of the user's post orders, but it never explicitly identifies the parameter or says whether it is an order id, briefing id, or draft id.
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 clear verb and resource: retrieving the file attached to the briefing of one of the user's post orders. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as growwer_download_order_draft or growwer_download_seller_order_briefing, and the title's 'draft' wording differs from the description's 'briefing' wording.
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 phrase 'Use this when the user needs the file they attached to the briefing of one of their post orders' gives a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended situation is easy to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.