studio_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that over remote the path is ignored and a signed URL is returned, that text kinds return truncated inline content, and that explicit artifact_id is validated up front. This exceeds typical behavioral disclosure.

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 structured with a one-sentence summary, bullet lists, and transport sections. Every sentence adds functional information; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

It covers dialog semantics, return values for remote and text kinds, error validation, and output format support. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicit response descriptions.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all six parameters—notebook name/ID, artifact ref, artifact_type with enum values, artifact_id prefix, output_format mappings, and transport-dependent path. It adds meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Download a generated artifact,' a specific verb+resource pairing. It further details the two targeting modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_list and studio_generate.

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?

It gives explicit instructions on exactly-one targeting between artifact and artifact_type, and explains when to use each with artifact_id. Transport-specific guidelines (stdio vs remote) and output_format overrides provide clear context, though it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools.

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