ds_download_resource

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the dual behavior: if save_to is empty, content is returned as base64; if save_to is provided, it saves to a path accessible to the MCP server process. This includes a crucial environmental constraint (the path is server-side, not client-side). It doesn't mention error cases or side effects, but for a read-only download this is sufficient.

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 efficiently structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary behavior details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though 'resource_id: Resource ID' is slightly redundant.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the essential behavior, return formats, and binary support. It does not discuss possible errors or file size limits for base64 encoding, but given the straightforward nature, it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains save_to's purpose, its server-side nature, and the empty-string default behavior leading to base64 output. For resource_id, it only says 'Resource ID', adding little beyond the schema, but this parameter is self-explanatory.

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 'Download a resource file' with explicit support for binary formats like jar and zip, which distinguishes it from sibling operations like ds_view_resource. It also explains the two output modes (save-to-path or base64), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use context: download a resource file, especially binary ones, and optionally save to a server-side path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ds_view_resource or ds_get_resource_by_name, and it does not state when to avoid using this tool.

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