github_actions_download_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention that this tool downloads the artifact content, what format is returned (e.g., binary stream), authentication requirements, or that it requires an artifact_id from a prior list call. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical context. It front-loads the verb and object but lacks structure to convey necessary details for correct invocation.

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 complexity (four required parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to find the artifact_id, what archive_format values are accepted, or what the download response looks like. The parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal and do not compensate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'artifact_id'). The description adds no additional meaning about the required artifact_id (e.g., how to obtain it) or archive_format (e.g., valid values like 'zip' or 'tgz'). The agent must guess these details.

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 'Download an artifact' states a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling download tools like download_job_logs_for_workflow_run or download_workflow_run_logs. The purpose is clear in isolation but lacks context to distinguish it from similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for downloading build artifacts by ID, nor does it exclude log downloads or other artifact-related operations. An agent would have no context to choose this tool over siblings.

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