download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), authentication requirements, file size limitations, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 file transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, error messages), doesn't mention side effects (does it overwrite existing local files?), and provides minimal context about the server connection. The description should do more given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain path format expectations, connection management, or default behavior. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Download') and resource ('file from connected server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'upload' tool, which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-file' or 'upload'. It mentions 'connected server' but doesn't specify prerequisites or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.

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