Download Video

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds operational details: it writes to KENARI_OUTPUT_DIR and fails with still_rendering before rendering completes. This clarifies side effects and error behavior beyond the structured fields, without contradicting them.

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 two concise phrases that front-load the core action and destination, then append the error condition. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary prose.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essential operational facts: endpoint, output directory, and render-state error. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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%, and the id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Kenari video job id whose finished bytes should be downloaded.' The description does not add further parameter detail, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Download finished video bytes via GET /v1/videos/{id}/content to KENARI_OUTPUT_DIR.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling creation and status tools by focusing on retrieving completed content.

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 when to use the tool by saying 'finished video bytes' and warns that it 'Errors with still_rendering while the job renders.' This gives clear context that the tool should be used only after rendering completes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as wait_for_video or get_video_status.

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