store_download_pbw

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: it creates dest_dir, writes the file, sanitizes filenames to prevent traversal, enforces a 32 MiB cap, and sends a User-Agent. Error conditions (no published .pbw, non-directory dest_dir, empty body, oversize body) are enumerated, providing comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then adds concise, high-value details about side effects, safety, and return value. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and a sparse schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, side effects, error handling, security behavior, return values, and downstream usage. The existence of an output schema allows it to omit detailed return formatting, but it still mentions key return fields.

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 0% coverage, but the description uses both parameters in context: 'app_id' identifies the app and 'dest_dir' is the destination directory that gets created if needed. This provides enough meaning for an agent to understand their roles, though it does not explicitly define acceptable formats or sources for app_id.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pair: 'Download an app's latest-release .pbw to dest_dir.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like store_search or store_app, which likely handle metadata. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states that this feeds the install/emulator flow and instructs passing the returned path to a Tier 3 install tool, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, only implying it via the flow description.

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