rti_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: fetching specific document types, saving to disk, returning the saved path, and defaulting to the server's documents folder. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites like session setup, but for a download tool this is adequate 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It explains the two kinds, the return value, and the default path without any redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no annotations), the description covers the main behaviors and edge condition for 'reply'. However, it does not mention session prerequisites (sibling tools like rti_session_status suggest a session is needed) or what happens if the application is not found or the download fails. With an output schema present, return values are adequately covered, but the description could be more complete regarding prerequisites and failure modes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter with two valid values and their meanings, and implies the 'path' parameter via the default folder note. The 'registration_number' is not explicitly described but is inferable from 'an application's PDF'. This provides meaningful semantics 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 an application's PDF to disk' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rti_list (listing) and rti_details (viewing details) by focusing on downloading PDFs, and further differentiates between 'reply' and 'request' document types.

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 clear guidance on when to use each 'kind' value, including the condition that 'reply' only works on disposed applications. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not statement.

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