Download job outputs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-type context (what actually lands on disk), but says nothing about overwrite behavior at the destination or whether a partial/failed download leaves files behind – notable gaps given the idempotentHint.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage condition. Every clause earns its place by either naming the artifacts or naming the trigger.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally would say what the call returns (e.g., file paths) and how success/failure surfaces. It covers when to call and what is written, but the return shape and destination-overwrite semantics are left unspecified, which is a meaningful omission for a disk-writing tool.

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 all four parameters (kind, name, task_id, output_dir) including defaults and the enum are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'PSD' and 'bundle' loosely maps to the kind enum but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a completed job's outputs to disk') and enumerates the artifact types it handles (images, unpacked zips, PSD, Channeling bundle). It also positions itself relative to the job_status sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from the job-creation tools.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'Use after job_status reports completed, or to fetch a job's files again.' This names the prerequisite tool and the re-fetch case. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., that calling before completion fails), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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