download_act

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: 'original means unchanged viewer-download bytes', uncertain results return files=[], a supplied scan_sequence yields SELECTED status, allow_probable permits a PROBABLE download while preserving that status, and no silent first-record/candidate selection is made. This is unusually rich status/semantics disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, so size is appropriate. However, the terse, jargon-dense fragments ('FOUND downloads its bound scans', 'archive-master claim') are cryptic and require domain knowledge to parse, which hurts structure more than length does.

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 6-parameter mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers the uncertain/failed result shape (files=[]) and status semantics. It still leaves several parameters and the reader/output pipeline unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict invocation 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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain scan_sequence, allow_probable, and output_format ('original means unchanged viewer-download bytes'), but leaves reader (an enum), max_scans, and record_id completely unaddressed. Partial compensation for a 6-param, zero-coverage 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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Resolve and download an act') and the surrounding sentences describe what resolution entails. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'download_scan', which would be the most likely point of confusion for an agent.

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?

It hints at behavior ('Uncertain results return files=[]') and explains what scan_sequence and allow_probable do, but never states when to use this tool versus download_scan or resolve_act_scan. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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