sw_get_receipt

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it writes files to disk by default, returns the file path, can inline bytes or extracted text, and can be disabled with write:false. It also warns about authentication issues with direct URL fetches. These are exactly the side effects and constraints the annotations do not capture.

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 dense but tightly organized: purpose first, then the 401 context, then parameter usage guidance, then filesystem behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information and none are wasted or redundant. The most important operational details are 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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description still gives enough context to call the tool correctly: what it downloads, why direct URL fetching fails, how to get bytes or text, and when to avoid writing files. The schema covers remaining parameter mechanics like output_dir and size, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra semantic guidance on top of the schema. It clarifies when to use inline versus extract_text, that both work when the caller cannot see the server filesystem, and that write:false is for read-only or unreachable filesystem scenarios. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Download the receipt image or PDF attached to a Splitwise expense.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sw_get_expense, which returns receipt URLs rather than the receipt content itself. An agent can immediately tell what action this tool performs and what resource it operates on.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool instead of fetching receipt URLs directly, because those URLs return 401 without server credentials. It also gives concrete conditions for setting inline:true and extract_text:true, and when write:false is appropriate. This is strong when-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative path.

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