minio_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 states the action ('Download') but omits critical details like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the bucket or object doesn't exist), file overwriting behavior, or performance considerations (e.g., for large files). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a file operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., file saved locally) or failure, nor does it cover security or operational risks, leaving the agent poorly informed for reliable use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (bucket_name, object_name, file_path). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., file_path must be writable). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Download an object') and resource ('from MinIO to a local file'), distinguishing it from siblings like minio_get_object (which may return data differently) or minio_upload_file (which performs the opposite operation). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as minio_get_object (which might return object data without saving to a file) or minio_presigned_url (for generating download links). It lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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