Download report

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with openWorldHint, and the description usefully reconciles that profile by disclosing the target directory (GOMOBSEC_DOWNLOAD_DIR, default ~/Downloads/gomobsec) and the never-overwrites policy. It also states the return value. It does not mention any permission or auth requirements for writing to disk.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then formats, then side effects and return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, format choices, destination path, overwrite behavior, and return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior on an incomplete scan is unstated.

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 parameter meaning; it does explain all four format enum values (DOCX as the pentest report, XLSX, JSON, SARIF for code-scanning tools). scan_id is only indirectly characterized as identifying a completed scan, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Download the full report of a completed scan') and enumerates the exact output formats. No sibling (list_scans, get_scan, get_findings) does artifact download, so the tool is instantly distinguishable.

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 phrase 'of a completed scan' implicitly gates usage on a finished scan and hints at wait_for_scan, and 'SARIF (for code-scanning tools)' guides format selection by tool type. It stops short of explicitly naming the prerequisite step or telling the agent what to do when the scan is still running.

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