Sigma Download Query Export

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by specifying the response forms (JSON/text/CSV vs base64 for PDF/XLSX/PNG), the 'processing' pending state, and the max_bytes payload cap. The annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action in the first sentence, then return behavior, then the parameter note. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the key operational details: return types, pending state, and payload limit. Since an output schema is present, return-value documentation is not required. The main gaps are the lack of guidance on where queryId comes from and what happens when max_bytes is exceeded, but the tool is still largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explicitly explains max_bytes with a default value. query_id is given contextual meaning via 'by queryId', but its format, origin, or how to obtain it is not described. This is partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Download'), a specific resource ('exported query result file'), and a precise key ('by queryId'). It also enumerates the possible return formats, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from export-related siblings like sigma_export_and_download.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent must already have a queryId from an export operation and can poll while the query is 'processing'. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be chosen over related tools, nor does it mention that it pairs with an export step.

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