download_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies the tool reads only text files and returns content, but does not state error handling for missing files, permissions, reversible nature, or whether the returned content is string, binary, or other. The phrase 'dentro do diretório gerenciado' adds context but lacks safety or behavioral details.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is too brief to cover necessary details, so it is not perfectly calibrated for comprehensiveness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should clarify return format, file type handling (e.g., non-text files), and error conditions. It fails to do so, leaving important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'relativePath' described as 'Caminho relativo do arquivo'. The description adds the scope 'dentro do diretório gerenciado', which slightly supplements the parameter meaning. However, it does not add significant value beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Lê e retorna' (reads and returns) and the resource 'conteúdo de um arquivo de texto' (content of a text file) within the managed directory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file, move_file, upload_file, and get_file_info, which have different purposes.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to siblings like get_file_info (metadata) or list_files (listing). The agent is left to infer usage without explicit context.

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