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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does so well: ttl default 15 min (60-3600 s), 2 GB ceiling, link is secret, scoped to one path, and dies with the sandbox. It omits error/failure behavior, which keeps it just short of exceptional.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by how to use it, then constraints and expiry. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what is returned (the URL), how to consume it (curl), and its lifetime/scope constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate; it adds the ttl default and range and the path scoping constraint ('only for that path'). The path format (leading-slash pattern) is left to the schema, but the semantic meaning of each parameter is conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), an exact artifact (a short-lived HTTPS link), and scope (streams ONE file from the sandbox), with concrete examples (build artifact, archive). This clearly separates it from siblings like download_file and get_upload_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?

Gives strong context: requires token + live sandbox_id, the link only works while the sandbox runs, and it shows the exact curl invocation. It does not explicitly contrast with the download_file sibling, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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