download_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the source and destination mapping, mentions automatic parent directory creation, and implies file transfer from container to host. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, file size limits, or permissions requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying sentences that each add useful context without redundancy. There is no wasted text, and the structure supports quick comprehension.

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 (file transfer between container and host), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete—it covers purpose, usage context, and key behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, return values, or limitations, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by clarifying the '/app/{relpath}' mapping and the host filesystem context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Download a file') and resource ('from the container's /app directory to the host filesystem'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_file (which moves in the opposite direction) and execute_ipython_cell/reset (which are unrelated file operations).

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 context for when to use this tool ('Retrieves files created or modified during code execution from the container'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., it doesn't contrast with upload_file beyond the directional implication).

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