download_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the file is saved to a default location (Downloads folder) or custom path, and it returns specific details (local file path, filename, size, content type). However, it lacks information on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or file overwriting behavior, which are important for 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key parameters. Each sentence adds value, such as examples, default behavior, return values, and usage context. It could be slightly more concise by combining some details, but overall it's efficient with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a file download operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values, but lacks details on error cases, security considerations, or performance aspects. Without an output schema, more explicit return format details would enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the URL format with examples and noting the default save path, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage nuances for the parameters.

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 specific action ('Download a file') and resource ('from D2L Brightspace'), with explicit examples of what can be downloaded (lecture slides, assignment files, course materials). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that retrieve information (e.g., get_announcements, get_assignments) by focusing on file retrieval rather than metadata or content listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to download lecture slides, assignment files, course materials, or any file linked in course content'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for files only versus other content types that might require different tools.

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