download_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not disclose whether the output directory must already exist, whether existing files are overwritten, what file formats are produced, or whether authentication or special permissions are required.

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 concise sentence with no filler words and the primary verb front-loaded. It earns its place, though it is minimal and does not add any structured context.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and clarification of what 'assets' includes, and there is no output schema to compensate for these omissions.

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%, with both projectId and outputDir documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that outputDir is a local directory.

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 states a clear verb ('Download'), a resource ('screens and assets'), and a destination ('to a local directory'), which goes beyond just repeating the tool name. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_screens and get_screen, though it does not state the exact scope of what is downloaded.

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 gives no guidance on when to use download_assets versus alternatives such as get_screen, list_screens, or generate_screen_from_text. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool.

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