Download External RFI And Responses Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: it returns a redirect to a streaming download URL, is read-only, and failure responses carry HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of expected outcomes and errors.

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 relatively long but well-structured, covering action, usage, parameters, return, safety, errors, and API reference in distinct sentences. The mention of return behavior is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, but all content earns its place, and the format aids scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains expected outputs (redirect and JSON with file or URL), covers error handling with typical status codes, and provides prerequisites (resolve id via list tool). It also notes defaults for company_id/project_id and emphasizes read-only behavior, making it complete for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with only generic 'URL path parameter' descriptions, so the description's additions about company_id/project_id defaulting to procore_set_config values and id being an existing parent record are valuable. However, the statement that these defaults apply when omitted contradicts the schema and the description's own 'Required parameters' line, creating confusion about whether they can be omitted. This mixed signal lowers the score.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Initiates a zip download of the External RFI and all response attachments,' providing a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like download_external_rfi_pdf_export or download_rfis_list, which handle PDF exports or lists rather than attachments.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which external RFI and responses attachment you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, offering a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, only implying the list tool.

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