works_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does: dest must not exist or be empty, Library cache is skipped, the temp copy is deleted afterwards, downloads are registered and auto-deleted after a 24-hour expires_at on the next download. It also discloses the return payload, a directory plus a files list of relative paths and sizes. That is unusually complete behavior disclosure for a mutating file-producing tool.

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?

It is one dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action and return value, then destination semantics, lifecycle, alternatives, and licensing. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical explaining what to read inside the project is slightly verbose.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a file-system side effect, the description covers return shape, cleanup lifecycle, destination preconditions, sibling routing, and licensing constraints. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the preconditions on dest (must not exist or be empty, Library cache skipped) and the consequence of omitting it (the project stays in the temp directory). That is real added value rather than repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: download a complete project for a homepage work and unzip it. It immediately names the sibling it is not (works_open) for viewing in the editor, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use works_open if you want to see the effect in the editor, and call works_cleanup immediately after you finish learning. It also states the acquisition path (template_id from works_list / works_search / works_by_effect) and the licensing restriction against copying into your own project.

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