jobs_download_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the download is to a local file and that the job must be completed, but doesn't mention file overwrite behavior, permissions, size limits, or side effects. The description adds the context of legacy refs, but could be more comprehensive.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential context. Every sentence 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?

For a simple download tool, the description covers core usage. It ties to jobs_get for filename discovery and addresses legacy refs. However, it omits return value information (no output schema) and potential error conditions like missing files or failed jobs. Overall, it's mostly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains how to obtain filenames from jobs_get and notes the retirement of legacy refs, which is not in the schema. It also implies the job must be completed (already in schema). This extra guidance elevates the score.

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 downloads a completed managed job's artifact by filename to a local file, using the verb 'download' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jobs_get, jobs_logs, and jobs_cancel by focusing on artifact retrieval.

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 instructs users to discover filenames from jobs_get's artifacts map and mentions deprecation of legacy run402 refs, providing clear context for proper usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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