Download Flow images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one valuable trait: 2K/4K are server-side upscales that 'can take a few minutes,' warning the agent about latency. It says nothing about where files are written, overwrite behavior, or failure modes, and notably omits what the call actually returns.

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, front-loaded with the operation, then the subordinate detail about size semantics. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

Parameters are well covered between schema and description, but this is a file-producing tool with no output schema, and the description never says what comes back (paths? file objects?) or how multiple media_ids are handled. A short return-value sentence would make it complete.

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 75% and the schema already explains project, media_ids, and output_dir, but the description adds genuine meaning for the size enum: 1K is the original file while 2K/4K are Flow-generated upscales. That distinguishes the values in a way the bare enum cannot.

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 and resource ('Download images from a Flow project by media id'), which cleanly separates it from the generate-oriented sibling flow_generate_images. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description's media-id reference plus the schema note that ids come from flow_generate_images hint at the generate-then-download workflow, but the description itself never says when to call this versus flow_status or flow_get_options, nor any preconditions.

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