asc_download_profile

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It reveals that a .mobileprovision file is downloaded, but does not state where it is written when dest_path is null, whether existing files are overwritten, or what signing/authentication requirements apply. This leaves key runtime effects unstated.

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 one short sentence and all words carry meaning, making it easy to parse. It could have added behavior or destination details without becoming bloated, so it is concise rather than complete.

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?

For a two-parameter file-download tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: what happens without dest_path, whether the file is returned as content or saved, and what the response contains. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent guessing on core calling behavior.

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, but it only covers profile_id via 'by id.' It does not explain dest_path semantics, the default output location, or accepted file naming. The parameter names are reasonably self-describing, but no added meaning is given.

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 states a clear action and target: 'Download a provisioning profile (.mobileprovision) by id.' It identifies the resource and the unique key, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from other signing-related siblings such as asc_list or signing_inspect, leaving a small ambiguity about where listing ends and downloading begins.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as asc_list or signing_inspect. An agent is not told prerequisites like profile existence or authentication, and no exclusion conditions are given, so it must infer relevance from the tool name alone.

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