download_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns base64-encoded content, files are wrapped in password-protected archives by default to prevent AV/EDR triggers, and it can save directly to the host filesystem. This covers security implications and output handling well, though it doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose and return format. Subsequent sentences provide essential behavioral context and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the tool's behavior, security implications, and parameter usage. The main gap is the lack of information about return values beyond 'base64-encoded content' - no details about error responses, success indicators, or output structure. This prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains WHY the archive parameter exists ('to prevent AV/EDR triggers'), provides usage guidance ('Pass false for harmless files like text reports'), and clarifies the purpose of output_path ('to save directly to the host filesystem'). This elevates the score above baseline.

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 a file') and resource ('from the output directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_from_url' (which downloads from URLs) and 'list_files' (which only lists files). The specific verb+resource combination makes the 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('to retrieve analysis results') and guidance on when to modify default behavior ('Pass archive: false for harmless files like text reports'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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