download_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns contents as a Base64-encoded string, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, whether it is read-only, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the action, input, and output. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, input, and output. It might be improved by noting file size limits or token usage, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 provides only the parameter 'file_token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the token identifies the file, which gives some meaning, but it does not explain where tokens come from or their format. This is acceptable for a simple tool but could be more explicit.

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 uses a specific verb 'download' and names the resource 'file' with the identifier 'file token', clearly stating the action and distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_file or structure-related tools. It also specifies the output format (Base64-encoded string), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when you have a file token and need the file's contents. It provides the context for use but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_structure_with_file_token, which is a minor gap.

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