ds_download_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: this tool returns instructions for downloading via WebDAV, GoCommands, and iCommands rather than the file content itself, which prevents an agent from expecting bytes. It says nothing about permissions, existence checks, or error behavior for an operation that must touch a remote iRODS path.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior. The second sentence ('The specified path must be an iRODS path') is largely redundant with the first, and there is a typo ('contgent'), keeping it out of the top band.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what comes back (per-tool download recipes) and the input constraint. It is thin on failure modes and permission requirements, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the path must be an iRODS path and never addresses local_path (the required full path with file name), so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema — the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource (a file/data-object at an iRODS path) and an unusual but precise output: download instructions rather than file bytes. It does not name the sibling it must be distinguished from (ds_read_file, which returns content), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the constraint that the path must be an iRODS path and by the fact that it returns recipes rather than data, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of ds_read_file or ds_upload_file as alternatives.

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