download_asset

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It implies a read-like operation (downloading an asset) but does not clarify whether it modifies the asset on the server, overwrites local files, or has other side effects. The behavior is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 is minimal and does not cover essential context such as expected output, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the ambiguity in parameter meanings and the lack of guidance on distinguishing from similar tools, the description is not complete enough for fully correct usage.

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 schema provides no descriptions for 'path' or 'local_path', and the tool description does not explain either parameter. Although the names suggest 'path' might be the asset's source and 'local_path' the destination, this is not explicitly stated, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 action (download) and the object (asset) with a destination (local path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_asset, move_asset, and delete_asset, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the context. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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