artifact_download

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the copy is verified against the manifest via size and SHA-256 per file before placement, existing files are never overwritten, and no Codespace is needed when the job was exported. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and that readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone do not convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the execution path, then the safety guarantees. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers preconditions, mechanism, verification, and non-overwrite behavior. It could note what happens on verification failure or the source of the manifest, but it is otherwise complete for a 5-parameter download 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It adds meaning for localDestination ('new local absolute path') and artifact (must be declared in job_submit), but says nothing about projectId, jobId, or locale, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (Download) and resource (one artifact) plus the precise scoping condition: artifacts declared in job_submit and listed in job_get with state collected. This cleanly separates it from sibling job_get, which only lists.

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 a clear precondition (job must be in 'collected' state, artifact must come from job_submit/job_get) and explains the two execution paths (local archive when exported vs gh codespace cp otherwise). It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternative, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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