download_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the download action and default behavior for the version parameter, but fails to describe critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, file formats, error handling, or what happens if the app/version doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs downloads.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a download operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, errors), doesn't fully explain parameters, and the return value description ('Success message with download details') is vague without an output schema. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 adds basic semantics by explaining that 'app' can be a name or numeric ID and 'version' is optional with a default to latest, which provides context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage—for example, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints for 'output_dir' or provide examples, leaving some parameters inadequately explained.

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 action ('download') and resource ('a specific version of an app'), with the specific verb 'download' and resource 'app' making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_latest_version' or 'search', which prevents a perfect 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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning that 'If no version is specified, downloads the latest,' which suggests when to use the version parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_app_latest_version' or 'search', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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