alefba_download_original

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the link is signed and short-lived (~30s) and that the tool only works for already-processed local files. It does not mention whether the tool has side effects or requires authentication, but the operation is a read (download link generation), which is consistent with the description. Additional details on error handling or preconditions would improve 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 relatively concise, containing only necessary facts across two languages (English and Persian). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The bilingual content is somewhat redundant for an English-speaking AI agent, but not excessive. Every sentence adds value, though the Persian version could be omitted without loss of clarity.

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 and a simple output schema, the description covers key aspects: endpoint, return value, link expiry, and file state requirement. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if the file is not processed or the document URL is invalid) and does not clarify if there are rate limits or cost implications. While adequate for basic use, it leaves gaps for robust agent handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify all parameters. It only addresses the instance parameter (optional, defaults to default instance). The required document_url parameter is not explicitly described; its purpose is only implied by the tool's overall function. The agent would need to infer that document_url identifies the document, but format or constraints are missing. This gap lowers the score.

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 the tool gets a signed link to download the original source file, specifying the endpoint (POST /api/download_original/) and return value ({download_link}). It distinguishes from sibling tools like alefba_download_pdf by emphasizing 'original' file, ensuring the agent selects the correct tool for the intended file type.

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 explains the tool works only for already-processed local files and that the instance parameter is optional, defaulting to the default instance. It implicitly differentiates from siblings (alefba_download_excel, etc.) by focusing on original source, but does not explicitly list when to use alternatives. Nonetheless, the guidance is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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