Get Worker Code

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about how the tool behaves depending on the Worker syntax (one entry per module vs. single script), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add necessary detail about syntax differences. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It explains what the response will contain based on syntax, which is important for a download tool. Minor gaps like response format details are acceptable given the overall context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, as script_name is described as 'The name of the Worker script.' The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics, so the schema is sufficient and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb (Download) and resource (Worker's deployed source code). It also distinguishes between module-syntax and service-worker-syntax output, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_worker that likely return Worker metadata.

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 usage ('Download a Worker's deployed source code') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It provides context about syntax variations, which helps set expectations, but lacks explicit guidance for choosing this over get_worker or other sibling tools.

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