browser.read_download

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) so the description carries the burden. It discloses that binary files are refused and returns an artifact URL, and that pagination behaves like get_html. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but given the low annotation coverage, the description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. The first sentence covers purpose and selection, the second covers pagination and binary handling. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main use case, pagination, and binary refusal, and references get_html for behavioral similarity. Since there is no output schema, the return format is implied ('as text') but not explicitly structured. The mention of pagination and refusal covers key edge cases, making it reasonably complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description repeats the download_id semantics (omit for latest) and adds the file-type context, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. The reference to get_html for pagination is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 states the tool reads a downloaded file as text, specifies supported file types (CSV, JSON, TXT, HTML), and identifies the download via download_id or latest completed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_downloads (which lists) and get_html (which gets page HTML) by focusing on reading download content.

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 explains how to select a download (by id or omit for latest) and references list_downloads as the source of download_id. It also mentions pagination like browser.get_html, giving usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives beyond noting binary files are refused, but the usage guidance is clear and actionable.

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