download_from_romeo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the basic operation: it does not say whether existing local files are overwritten, how the 'verify' integrity check behaves, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is inadequate for a 4-parameter transfer tool: no usage guidance, no parameter semantics, and no behavioral context on overwriting or verification. The agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'fichier ou repertoire' loosely hints at the recursive flag, but remote_path, local_path, and verify are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource with direction: 'Rapatrie un fichier ou un repertoire depuis ROMEO vers la machine locale.' An agent can tell it moves data from remote to local, distinguishing it from upload_to_romeo by direction, though no sibling is named.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and does not mention alternatives such as read_remote_file or upload_to_romeo. The directionality is inferable from 'depuis ROMEO vers la machine locale', but nothing guides selection explicitly.

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