download_artifact

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads and saves files locally and returns a confirmation with path and size. However, it omits details like whether existing files are overwritten or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 very concise: a single sentence for purpose, a code block for artifact reference format, and clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with three required parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It lacks potential error handling or overwrite behavior, but overall is sufficient for the task's complexity.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: task_id (UUID), artifact_id (UUID from agents-reference), and path (local save location). It adds context for artifact_id's origin, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 tool downloads a file artifact and saves it locally, specifying the source (Tendem task results) and file types (image, document). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on task management (approve, cancel, list, etc.).

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 explains how artifact references appear (agents-reference) and provides parameter details, giving clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_task_result or state when not to use this tool, preventing a score of 5.

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