download_generated_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it discloses the inline 3D stage behavior, automatic decimation for oversized meshes, and the fallback link for unsupported hosts. It also notes optional validation, though it doesn't explain what validation entails. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'download'.

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 fairly concise with a clear structure: the main purpose, then arguments, then a detailed note about the inline stage. The stage paragraph is long but introduces important side effects. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core action, so it earns its length.

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 parameters and the inline viewer side effect, but it omits details about return values (e.g., file path, success message) and does not explicitly state the prerequisite that the generation job must be completed (though the name implies it). It also doesn't mention error conditions or when validation is triggered. For a tool with no output schema, more context would help.

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 description explicitly explains all three parameters: job_id ('Job ID of a completed generation job'), provider ('Provider that owns the job (meshy or openscad)'), and output_path ('Directory to save the file. Defaults to system temp directory'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and gives clear meaning beyond raw schema types.

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 downloads a completed generated model and optionally validates it. It identifies the key resource (generated model) and the action (download). The name itself is specific and distinguishes it from generic download tools like 'download_model', but the description could more explicitly contrast with siblings like 'preview_generated_model'.

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 mentions the tool requires a completed generation job (implied by 'completed generated model') and explains the parameters (job_id, provider), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_model, preview_generated_model). There's no guidance on when not to use it or what substitutes exist, so the context is thin.

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