fluig_ged_download

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious Content-Type unreliability of /stream — real behavioral value — and implies a local filesystem write, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, permissions, or whether metadata is written alongside the file or returned.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the caveat. No filler. Slightly compressed — the 'junto dos metadados' clause is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

All three params are fully documented and no output schema exists, but the description leaves unclear what 'junto dos metadados' means operationally (sidecar file vs. return value), which an agent would want to know before calling.

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%, including a detailed env explanation, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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: downloads a GED document's content to a local file, plus metadata. The GED scoping implicitly distinguishes it from fluig_process_attachment_download, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Baixa o conteúdo... para arquivo local' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus fluig_ged_list, fluig_ged_path, or fluig_process_attachment_download. The Content-Disposition warning is operational, not selection guidance.

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