clio_download_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating action ('download') and discloses that content is saved to a local sandbox with a returned path, plus inline text for text/markdown. It omits edge cases like binary files or permission requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediate outcome. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, where output goes, and the inline return for text/markdown. It lacks details on error handling or file types, but those are less critical for this straightforward download operation.

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 single parameter 'id' has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explicitly state that 'id' refers to the document identifier. While the name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema field itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('download') and clearly states the resource ('a document's content') and the outcome ('return its path'). It distinguishes from siblings like clio_get_document and clio_browse by focusing on content retrieval rather than metadata listing or folder navigation.

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 implies a read/download use case and mentions the local sandbox, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over clio_get_document or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparative guidance.

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