get_download_link

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the non-destructive nature of generating a download link. The description adds the key behavioral trait that the link is 'temporary', which is beyond the annotation. It does not mention any authentication requirements or rate limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that includes the essential information: what the tool does and an example of the parameter. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the core purpose and an example. However, it does not clarify the distinction from 'get_upload_link' or 'download_results', which are relevant siblings. Given the simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from explicit differentiation.

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 description provides an example of the path format ('myCase/FDS.tar.gz'), which adds meaning beyond the raw 'path' string in the schema. However, with only one parameter and high simplicity, the schema and description together are sufficient. The description does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage, but the example helps.

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 tool's purpose: obtaining a temporary download link for a storage file. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('download link') with an example path, which distinguishes it from other tools like 'list_storage' or 'download_results'. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to avoid confusion with the similar 'get_upload_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 implies usage: to get a download link for a file in storage. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_results' or when not to use it. The presence of a 'path' parameter suggests it is for specific files, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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