download_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating that the download validates archive integrity (size, sha256, valid zip/tgz) for re-hosting, and that it uses the browser session. This goes beyond a simple 'downloads artifact' statement, though it doesn't detail error handling or file overwrite behavior.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core action and resource, the second adds validation detail. Every phrase earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context (purpose, authentication via browser session, validation behavior). It doesn't explain return values, but for a file-download tool the saveDir parameter implies the outcome. It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but overall it is fairly complete for its 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions package formats in general but doesn't elaborate on specific parameters like project override or saveDir semantics, leaving that to the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Download a package artifact') and the specific resource (.nupkg / .tgz from a feed via pkgs.dev.azure.com). It further distinguishes the tool by mentioning validation for re-hosting, making it distinct from sibling tools which deal with projects, work items, or PRs.

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 usage context (downloading artifacts from a feed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions. The mention of 'browser session' hints at a prerequisite, but lacks explicit guidance like 'use this when downloading packages, otherwise use search_feeds to locate them.'

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