ci_download_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'download and unzip' and the default destination, but it does not disclose whether it can overwrite existing files, what happens if the run has no artifacts, whether it requires network/auth, or the structure of the unzipped output. It also lacks information about return values or side effects.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and artifact types, and immediately states the default destination. It is concise with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose and destination but misses important context such as error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., run must be completed), and whether the tool handles directory creation. It is adequate for basic use but lacks depth.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the default destination, which clarifies the 'dest_dir' parameter's meaning and the output structure. However, it does not explain 'repo', 'project_path', or 'run_id' beyond what is obvious from their names, and the schema provides only titles, so the description adds some value but not full 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 action ('Download and unzip'), the resource ('a run's build outputs'), and specifies the output types (IPA / simulator .app.zip), making it obvious what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ci_get_logs which fetch logs, not artifacts.

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 implies when to use it (to obtain build artifacts) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Siblings like ci_get_logs exist for logs, but the description does not contrast with them. This leaves some ambiguity but is still clear enough for most agents.

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