Download My Submission Files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (non-mutating, never submits or modifies work), which is valuable. However, it does not mention that it writes files to disk, how it handles existing files (except the force parameter in schema), or any network/error behavior. The single safety guarantee is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action and key safety guarantee are front-loaded. Every word contributes value.

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, so the description should explain what the tool returns or does beyond the action. It does not mention return values, potential disk usage, or timing. With five parameters, some explanation of how they combine (e.g., assignment_id vs. all submissions) is implicit in the schema but not in the description. Adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or interactions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action (download), the resource (my submitted assignment attachments), and the destination (locally). It also explicitly clarifies that it never submits or modifies work, distinguishing it from mutation tools. This is a specific verb+resource statement.

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 provides context (downloads my submissions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_course_files or get_my_submission. It only implies usage by naming the action; no exclusions or comparison to siblings are given.

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