download_file_raw

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description adds real value: base64 encoding, MIME type return, and the security-relevant note 'Validated against root'. It does not cover size/truncation behavior, which matters given a max_bytes parameter.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core verb/return type leads. Slightly fragmented but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained max_bytes leaves a real gap in calling 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never explains either parameter. 'Validated against root' hints that rel_path is a root-relative path, but max_bytes (its purpose, units, truncation semantics) is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (download/read a raw file) plus the return encoding (base64 bytes with MIME type). The phrase 'Suitable for downloading binary files, images, PDFs' implicitly separates it from text-oriented siblings like read_file/read_file_markdown, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'Suitable for downloading binary files, images, PDFs, etc.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative, so the agent must infer that text files belong to read_file instead.

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