Download Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the distinction between template and version IDs, the side effect of outputPath writing to disk, the asAttachment behavior, and the behavior when sample:true is set (errors if no sample exists). This exceeds what annotations provide and helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 two sentences. The first sentence names the purpose and file types, the second covers the version/sample options. Every clause earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema fields. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all key behavioral variations: template vs version selection, sample download, outputPath side effects, and asAttachment fallback. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing—including error conditions for missing samples.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by restating the template/version distinction in prose, but it does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Download the original source file of a stored Carbone template' and lists the file types (DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, HTML). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like render_document (which generates outputs) and upload_template (which creates templates). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context for use: 'Use this to inspect, edit, or back up a template.' It differentiates between downloading the deployed version vs a specific version, and explains the sample option. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent. Still, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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