download-wiki-page-file

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and open-world; the description fills in the missing behavior — that it writes a file to a local path and returns savedTo, or falls back to base64Data when savePath is omitted. That dual-mode behavior is the key thing an agent needs and is not in the annotations. It omits auth requirements and whether an existing file at savePath is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then required/optional params, two concrete examples, and response fields — a natural agent-reading order. It runs long, and the response-field list partially duplicates what the examples imply, but nothing is wasted given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the explicit Response Fields list is genuinely necessary and well supplied; param sourcing and the savePath/base64 branch are both covered. The remaining gap is contextual routing against the sibling wiki/drive download tools, which a caller must resolve on its own.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it documents the exact JSON paths to obtain fileId from the page detail API and clarifies that savePath can be either a directory (filename auto-detected) or a full file path.

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 verb and resource ('Download a file attached to a Dooray wiki page') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling download-wiki-attach-file (or download-attachment / download-drive-file), so an agent cannot tell from the text which downloader applies to which context.

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?

Gives real guidance on when to use savePath (large files) vs. omitting it (base64, small files), and tells the agent where fileId comes from ($.result.files.id / $.result.images.id). But it never states when to prefer this tool over the near-identical sibling download-wiki-attach-file, which is the main ambiguity facing a caller.

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