get_download_info

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

There are no annotations, but the description explicitly states the operation is read-only and that the zip is not actually built. It also describes the return content. It does not mention potential errors or authentication requirements, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter explanations, then return summary. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, read-only behavior, and return shape, while the output schema handles exact return details. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly state that at least one of album_id or asset_ids should be provided, which matters given the schema marks both as optional.

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 no descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that album_id sizes the whole album and asset_ids sizes specific assets, which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether exactly one of the two is required or what happens if both are provided.

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 what the tool does: estimate the size of a zip before building it, for either an album or a selection of assets. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool download_archive by framing this as a pre-flight sizing step.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: warn the user about size before deciding whether to call download_archive. It also names the alternative tool and the decision context, which is strong usage guidance.

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