tenki_get_download_url

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the URL is short-lived, the retrieval uses HTTP GET, and only artifact-id-based download is supported. It does not specify exact expiration or response format, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core operation is stated first, followed by a single critical limitation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It names the return kind ('short-lived signed URL'), the HTTP method, the resource scope, and the key API limitation, giving an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, and both session_id and artifact_id are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the artifact_id concept with an example, but it does not add substantive per-parameter meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a short-lived signed URL to download (HTTP GET) a command artifact from a sandbox by its artifact id.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from path-based or snapshot-related siblings by scoping it to command artifacts and explicitly stating 'download-by-artifact-id only, not download-by-path.'

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need a signed URL for a command artifact and you have an artifact_id. The note 'not download-by-path' provides an explicit boundary, though it does not name alternative sibling tools such as tenki_read_file or tenki_get_snapshot_download_url.

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