Download a result

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that a manifest with SHA-256 and media info is produced, which is useful, but says nothing about where files land, auth requirements, or overwrite behavior for the outputDirectory.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse almost to a fault, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and the description only sketches the manifest artifact, not the actual downloaded media or return shape. Combined with three undocumented parameters and no annotations covering file-system side effects, the definition is too thin for a tool that writes files to disk.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (jobId, fileName, outputDirectory) or their formats. For a tool whose schema documents no parameters, the description fails to compensate, leaving fileName/outputDirectory semantics unexplained.

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 (Download) and resource (a finished job), and clarifies the media types (video or image) plus the accompanying .axcel.json manifest. It is clearly distinguishable from axcel_folder_download_zip, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 word 'finished' implies the job must be complete before download, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as axcel_view or axcel_folder_download_zip. The agent must infer preconditions.

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