get_modal_volume_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions overwriting behavior with force and the stdout option for local_destination, but it does not disclose whether directories are downloaded recursively, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 structured as a docstring with an Args section, making it easy to parse. It is slightly verbose but each line provides value. It could be more concise by condensing the parameter explanations, but it remains efficient overall.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers all parameters and indicates a return dictionary. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (like recursive download support), leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds meaning for each parameter: volume_name and remote_path are described, local_destination includes default and special '-' usage, and force explains overwrite behavior. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Download files from a Modal volume.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like put_modal_volume_file (upload) and copy_modal_volume_files (copy within volumes).

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 basic usage context by listing the arguments and their purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use get vs copy) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit, earning a score of 3.

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