download_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is saved to a specific path, which is a side effect. It doesn't mention potential overwrites, permissions, or that it only downloads without reading. The description is honest but not deep; it explains the core behavior and destination without extra context.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes essential path information in a clear format. It adds a relevant follow-up suggestion without unnecessary fluff. Excellent structure.

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 simple download tool with two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose, the file destination, and a recommended next step. It doesn't explain the return value, but the output schema likely covers that. It's adequate for the tool's simplicity and complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by showing the path pattern '$ALBS_LOG_DIR/<build_id>/<filename>', which ties both parameters to the file location. However, it doesn't explicitly define what build_id or filename represent beyond the path, and it doesn't mention any constraints or formats. Partial compensation.

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 specific verb ('Download') and a specific resource ('build log file') with an explicit destination ('to local filesystem'). It also explains the file path pattern, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_log_tail and search_log. This is clear and actionable.

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 gives a clear usage hint: after downloading, use read_log_tail to read contents. This implies the tool is for saving files locally rather than for immediate reading. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives like list_build_logs, so it's slightly incomplete.

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