canvas_file_download

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 successfully describes key behavioral traits: the authentication requirement (browser cookies), the limitation with API tokens, and the return structure (status, file data, error message). This covers important operational constraints that aren't in the schema. No contradictions exist since there are no annotations.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides critical operational notes, and finally outlines the return structure. Each sentence earns its place by adding valuable information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the NOTE to the end, but overall it's efficient.

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 complexity (download operation with authentication constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of providing necessary context. It explains the authentication requirement, the API token limitation, and the return structure. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more detail about error conditions or file size limitations.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between file_url and file_id, or provide guidance on which to use when. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Download') and resource ('a file from Canvas'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_file_get (which retrieves metadata) and canvas_file_list (which lists files) by specifying the download action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these specific siblings.

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 about when to use this tool through the NOTE section, which explains the authentication requirement (browser cookies needed, API tokens blocked). This gives important prerequisites for successful usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.

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