download_project

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: false, so the description carries much of the behavioral burden. The '(no extraction)' note adds functional context, and the schema's 'Never overwrites' is a behavioral trait, but that lives in the parameter schema rather than the description. Nothing discloses size limits, error behavior, or prerequisites, though the description adds a bit of value beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, format, and a behavioral clarification. Every word earns its place, and the scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. However, it fails to clarify when download_project is preferred over download_file or download_output, and it leaves the prerequisite of an open project implicit. A tool with three sibling download-oriented tools should address this routing gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – the single parameter output_path is fully documented in the schema ('Absolute local output path; parent must exist. Never overwrites.'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 'Download the open project as a ZIP archive' states a specific verb (download), a resource (the open project), and the output format (ZIP). The parenthetical '(no extraction)' adds useful scope clarification. It is clear and distinct enough from download_file and download_output, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those sibling download tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools download_file or download_output. The only usage hint is 'the open project,' implying a required prior context (a project must be open), but no explicit prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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