download_file

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the basic action. While annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) cover safety aspects, the description does not disclose important behaviors such as response format (e.g., binary stream), potential errors, or the semantics of 'download' vs 'read'.

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 extremely brief, bordering on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A well-structured description would include a few clarifying details, but this lacks substance and does not earn its place as a meaningful sentence.

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 a very minimal description. It fails to explain what 'download' entails (e.g., returns raw file content, supports streaming), nor does it differentiate from numerous sibling file tools. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool correctly.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter file_id with a description ('File ID to show'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 'Download file' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what file is downloaded or how this differs from similar tools like get_read_file or list_read_files. It lacks distinguishing details such as the source, format, or scope of the download.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative file-related tools. The description gives no context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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