eas_build_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes the build must be 'finished' (a precondition), but says nothing about auth/permissions, whether an existing file at destination is overwritten, retry behavior, or download size/rate limits.

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 followed by routing context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the workflow role is covered. However, for a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the absence of any parameter or operational detail (auth, destination overwrite) leaves gaps.

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% for three required parameters. The text implies build_id ('finished EAS build') and destination ('to a local path') loosely, but project_path is never explained and no parameter is given format or semantics beyond what the names suggest.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (the binary of a finished EAS build) and the target (a local path). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling EAS tools eas_build_list, eas_build_start, and eas_build_status, which do not download artifacts.

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 second sentence explicitly places the tool in a workflow—download the artifact then pass the path to apple_upload_build or play_upload_bundle—which tells the agent when this tool is the right step. It omits any exclusion conditions (e.g., what to do if the build is not yet finished) but the context is strong.

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