cloud_storage_download_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value ('Success') but omits failure behavior, overwrite semantics, permissions, or error handling. This adds some context but significant gaps remain, making it adequate but not fully transparent.

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 with Args and Returns sections. It delivers necessary information without extraneous content. Every line serves a purpose, earning a perfect score.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides key details about parameters and return value. However, it lacks error handling details and fails to address the mismatch between the listed arguments and the schema's required 'request' object. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for robust use.

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 schema only exposes an opaque 'request' object with no property descriptions, so the description's Args section is essential. It defines object_name, file_path, and bucket_name with meanings and defaults, which adds real value. However, it does not clarify that these arguments must be nested inside the 'request' object per the schema, creating a potential invocation mismatch.

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 opens with 'Download a file from cloud storage,' which is a specific verb+resource+action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like upload, list, and delete by naming a different operation. The return value is also stated, reinforcing the tool's purpose.

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 states the tool's function clearly (download a file) and implies when it should be used, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide exclusions. It offers a clear context without explicit 'when to use' guidance, fitting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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