download_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that it downloads and saves to local disk and returns the path, which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose details like overwrite behavior, error handling, network requirements, or any side effects beyond writing a file. A simple but thin behavioral description.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose statement, return value, source guidance, then an args list. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the verb phrase and key behavior.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, simple behavior, and an output schema (which likely details the returned path), the description covers the essentials: what it does, where inputs come from, and output. It does not elaborate on potential edge cases, but that is acceptable for this simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 fully compensates. It explains the 'url' parameter as the file URL from specific sources, and 'filename' as an optional custom filename with default behavior (uses original from URL). This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the bare 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 description clearly states the verb 'Download' and the resource 'a photo, video, or file to local disk from a ParentSquare URL'. It also specifies the return value (local file path). This differentiates it from all sibling tools, which are list/get operations without local disk writes.

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 explicitly instructs to use URLs from list_photos, list_files, or get_post attachment results, which gives clear context on when to use the tool. It also explains the optional filename default behavior. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, there are no alternative download tools among siblings, so no exclusion needed.

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