box_download_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the base64 return format and the ~2MB size cap. It doesn't describe error handling for oversized files, but this is a useful behavioral detail beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, followed by a concise usage guideline. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral contract (base64, size limit) and gives usage direction. The main gap is the undocumented 'path' parameter, but overall the description is quite 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?

The schema only documents boxId, while path has no description and the tool description doesn't explain 'path' either. With schema coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning.

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 action ('Download an artifact'), the return format (base64), and a size constraint (~2MB). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_get or box_read_file by specifying the encoding and size limitation.

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 explicitly advises 'Prefer box-side tools for larger files,' providing a clear when-not-to-use condition and pointing to an alternative class of tools. It doesn't name specific sibling tools, but the guidance is actionable.

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