Download Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it downloads the currently deployed version or a specific version, and clarifies that outputPath is only for local (stdio) mode and rejected in HTTP mode. These details enhance transparency beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage context, third details parameter options. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. A small improvement would be to use bullets for clarity, but the current structure is effective and concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (the file) and covers versioning, local vs HTTP mode, and the asAttachment option. It could mention error cases or file size limits, but given the annotations and overall clarity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: it explains that templateId can accept either a Template ID or Version ID, their different behaviors, and that outputPath is ignored in HTTP mode. This goes beyond schema-level documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('original source file of a stored Carbone template') with concrete examples (DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, HTML). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings (e.g., render_document) by focusing on the original, stored file. The mention of template ID vs version ID further clarifies scope.

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 explains when to use the tool ('to inspect, edit, or back up a template') and differentiates the two ID types (template ID for deployed version, version ID for specific version). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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