Download Tidy3D result / 下载 Tidy3D 结果

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the tool writes to a private directory, creates normalized metadata and an observable CSV, and requires explicit confirmation. These side-effect details are not present in the schema and help the agent anticipate what the tool does.

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 a single sentence in each language, front-loaded with the key condition 'After explicit confirmation'. It packs action, condition, destination, and result artifacts into a compact form with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With an output schema present and parameter descriptions at 100% coverage, the description only needs to cover usage context and side effects, which it does by stating the precondition and artifacts created. It leaves little for the agent to infer, though it could clarify its relationship with normalize_local_result.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's references to explicit confirmation and completed task map to confirm_download and task_id, but add no new syntactic or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the action (download), resource (completed Tidy3D task), destination (private directory), and outputs (normalized metadata and observable CSV). This distinguishes it from siblings such as get_simulation_status or normalize_local_result, which serve different workflow stages.

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 states a clear precondition: use after explicit confirmation and only for completed tasks. This gives the agent a concrete trigger condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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