annotation_download_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it retrieves a download URL, but does not explain what happens if the export is not completed, whether the URL expires, or if any authentication is required. This is a significant gap for a tool that depends on a prior async export process.

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 conveys the core purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only operation.

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 a simple two-parameter input and no output schema. The description mentions the return value ('download URL') and the precondition ('completed export'), but it lacks details on error behavior, URL validity, or workflow sequencing with sibling tools. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but with clear gaps.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (export_id and project_id), but the descriptions are minimal ('ID of the export', 'ID of the project'). The tool description adds no extra context about parameter relationships or formatting. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 a specific action ('Get download URL') on a specific resource ('completed export'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'annotation_export' (which creates exports) and 'annotation_check_export_status' (which checks status) by focusing on the final download step.

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 'for a completed export' implies the appropriate time to use the tool (after export completion), and the sibling names suggest a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention that one should first check export status via a sibling tool. Thus, usage context is implied but not explicit.

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