Belgeyi Diske Kaydet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool downloads as zip and returns the file path. However, it does not disclose whether files are overwritten, what happens if disk space is insufficient, or any authentication requirements. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks details on side effects.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and return value. No extraneous words or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain file naming conventions when no fileName is provided, overwrite behavior, error handling (e.g., if document not found), or the format of the returned path. A more comprehensive description is warranted for a tool that interacts with the local filesystem.

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 input schema has 80% description coverage; the tool description adds no additional context for parameters. The 'signed' parameter lacks description in schema and tool description, leaving its purpose ambiguous. Since the schema already explains most parameters, the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 (downloads a document as zip and saves to disk) and the return value (full path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gib_get_download_url (which only returns URL) and gib_get_document (which returns content). However, it does not specify the document type (e-invoice, receipt) explicitly, which is implied by context but could be clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include gib_get_download_url for fetching a URL instead, but the description does not explain the trade-offs. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must be registered in portal) or when not to use this tool.

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