analysis_download_artifact

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

The description says 'Download' implying a read-only operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which suggests the tool may have side effects. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no further behavioral details are disclosed beyond the annotations already present.

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 two sentences long and directly conveys the core purpose and token provenance without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool is relatively simple, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits key behavioral details (like how output_mode works) and fails to clarify the analysis_session_id parameter. Combined with the annotation contradiction, the context is incomplete for a reliable 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter by describing its sources, but does not clarify 'analysis_session_id' or 'output_mode'. Since only one of two required parameters is meaningfully described, it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 explicitly states the action ('Download') and the resource types ('exported object, RTP stream audio, or TLS key log from sharkd'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by referencing tokens from analysis_get_statistics, which no other tool does.

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 that tokens come from analysis_get_statistics or fixed tokens like 'ssl-secrets', which gives clear context on prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using the tool or list alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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