chaprola_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the URL is presigned, expires in 1 hour, and is restricted to files the user owns. This goes beyond a simple 'download' statement, but it does not detail response format or error conditions, so it is a solid 4.

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 action and key constraints. It is highly concise with zero wasted words, covering purpose, scope, and expiry in a compact form.

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 simplicity of the tool (three required parameters, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool returns (presigned URL), the scope (owned files), and the expiry. It could mention the response format or potential errors, but those are not necessary for a straightforward download-URL tool. The lack of sibling differentiation slightly reduces completeness.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and an enum, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning to the parameters; it merely restates that the file must be owned, which is already implied by the schema's project/file/type combination. No added value beyond 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 tool's purpose: obtaining a presigned S3 URL to download a user-owned file, with a specific expiry. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('presigned S3 URL'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like chaprola_import_download or chaprola_fetch, so it misses the top score.

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 implies the tool should be used when a user needs a temporary URL to download a file they own, and the 1-hour expiry provides context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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