download_results

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details (local_dir created if missing, extract deletes archives after unpacking, files_to_get defaults to all archives). However, the annotation destructiveHint=false directly contradicts the description's statement that extract will 'delete them after' unpacking, so the agent receives conflicting safety signals.

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 text is front-loaded with the main purpose and then uses one compact line per parameter with no filler. Every sentence adds operational information the schema lacks.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough operational detail to invoke it correctly, including defaults and side effects. The only notable gap is the lack of success/return-value information and the unresolved contradiction with destructiveHint, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: folder is the storage folder, local_dir is created if missing, extract controls unpack/delete behavior, and files_to_get is an optional filter defaulting to all result archives. This goes well beyond the bare property names in the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific action ('Download result archives of a storage folder to a local directory') with a clear object and destination, so an agent can immediately identify the tool's role. The parameter lines further scope it to result archives and distinguish it from sibling tools like list_results or get_download_link.

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 clear usage context: it is for downloading result archives from a storage folder to local disk, with files_to_get as an optional filter and extract as a post-processing step. It does not explicitly contrast with get_download_link or list_results, but the stated workflow is enough to select it for bulk archive retrieval.

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