dreamlayer_download

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds key behavioral details: it spends no new credits, never overwrites files, returns path/bytes, and does not start generation. These are important operational traits not inferable from readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false, and there is no contradiction with the 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?

Three sentences pack in the trigger condition, required inputs, behavior, return type, safety guarantee, and error-handling branches. The description is front-loaded with the most important usage signal and contains no filler or repetition of schema text.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: when to use, what to provide, what it returns, what it does not do, and how to handle the two main failure modes. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the path must be 'absolute' and 'new', and that the execution_id refers to a completed execution and can be reused for re-downloads after a failure. This is modest but genuine added value.

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 states a specific verb ('download') and resource ('finished image or sprite ZIP' from an existing execution), and clearly distinguishes itself from generation tools by noting it 'starts no generation'. This is more than a tautology and uniquely identifies the tool's role among 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when an existing execution completed or a previous download failed') and provides concrete guidance for common failure cases ('output_not_ready' vs 'local_output_failed'). It also implies when not to use it by noting it does not generate, effectively routing agents away from dreamlayer_generate.

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