retrieve

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

Annotations already declare it is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds the retrieval protocol and that results land in a local cache with file paths returned, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior, node authentication, or disk footprint for a write-to-disk 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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded and the return shape appended. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and full schema coverage handles parameters. It covers action, mechanism, and destination adequately; only the relationship to move/transfer siblings is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so node, study_uid, series_uid, and sop_instance_uid are all documented in the schema itself, including the series_uid dependency for sop_instance_uid. The description only echoes the study/series/instance narrowing, adding no new semantics, so 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 (download) and resource (study/series/instance) plus the destination (local cache) and protocols (C-GET/WADO-RS). An agent can tell it fetches data locally, though why it differs from siblings like `move` and `transfer` is not spelled out.

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 'into the local cache' phrase implies when this is appropriate versus server-side moves, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among `move`, `transfer`, or `list_local_files`. Usage must be inferred.

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