list_utils_download

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

The description mentions that the token is obtained by an active user, which implies authentication, but does not disclose error handling, security implications, or what happens if the token is invalid. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with 15 words, which is concise. However, the conciseness sacrifices essential details, making it less effective. It is not tautological but lacks substance.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool reliably, such as required vs optional inputs, expected output, or error scenarios.

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, and the description adds almost no meaning for the 'token' parameter. It only says 'file token obtained by an active user,' but does not explain its format, where to get it, or why it is optional (anyOf string or null). This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 it retrieves a file using a file token. The verb 'retrieve' is specific, and the resource is identified as a file from the operating system. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are download-focused.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for an active user session or how to obtain the token, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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