appknox_reports_download

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key side effects ('Automatically creates a new report if one does not exist') and output behavior ('Returns the CSV content directly as text - no file path needed'). This is significant context for a tool that may write data despite being a download operation.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, dependency, side effect, and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, behavior, and return format. It is self-contained and gives the agent everything needed to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already documents file_id with 100% coverage, but the description adds provenance ('from appknox_files') and clarifies that the tool will auto-create a report if needed, providing context beyond the parameter's basic definition.

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'), the resource ('vulnerability report'), the format ('CSV'), and the required file_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like appknox_reports_create by focusing on download and direct CSV content.

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?

It specifies a prerequisite ('Requires file_id from appknox_files') and explains the auto-create fallback, implicitly guiding when to use this tool instead of reports_create. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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