download-asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'read-only' and downloads via WebDAV, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose whether files are overwritten, error handling for missing files, or authentication requirements.

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 short and front-loaded with key information. The 'Plane B (file channel, read-only)' prefix is somewhat obscure but still concise. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple download tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: source, destination, and use case. Missing error handling or auth details, but acceptable for this complexity level.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that remotePath is relative to 'Data/ root', which clarifies the schema. No additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.

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 from the Foundry Data/ root to a local path, specifying direction and resource. It distinguishes from upload, copy, delete, and list siblings by focusing on remote-to-local transfer for inspection or reprocessing.

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 hints at usage ('for grabbing an existing asset to inspect or re-process') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like copy-asset or asset-url. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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