download_formula_field

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the file writing process, the metadata header format, and the conditional return behavior when 'outputPath' is omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence provides distinct, necessary information. No redundant or missing elements.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, read-only annotations, and thorough schema documentation, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core behavior and file format. Optional debug parameter usage is not mentioned, but this is a minor omission.

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 100% with descriptive parameter definitions. The description only restates the behavior of 'outputPath' already covered in the schema, adding no novel semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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') and the resource ('formula text of a formula field'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'download_base_formulas' by specifying it targets a single field. It also explains the file format and metadata header, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage for downloading a formula field's text with optional file writing, and mentions future interaction with 'update_formula_field' or VS Code commands. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'download_base_formulas' for bulk), leaving some guidance implicit.

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