download_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output is a ZIP but does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what if uploadId does not exist). For a download operation, more transparency on expected behavior is needed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Highly efficient and structured for quick parsing.

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?

While the description covers basic purpose and usage, it lacks details on return format (ZIP binary stream), potential errors, and prerequisites. Given no output schema and moderate schema coverage, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 67%, with uploadId missing schema description. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already states (e.g., results enum, outputDir default). Does not explain uploadId or results semantics further, which would help the agent.

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?

Description clearly states 'Download raw run artifacts (logs, screenshots, videos) as a ZIP' with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like get_html_report by specifying when to use this tool (when HTML report lacks detail).

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use when the HTML report doesn't contain enough detail') and gives concrete examples (need full logcat, video recording, non-failure screenshots). Implies not to use when HTML report suffices.

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