Download one file from a remote asset bundle

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details: extraction via HTTP byte ranges, local caching, and avoidance of downloading unrelated contents. It also notes the license requirement, providing context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered), the description sufficiently explains the core operation and key prerequisite. It could explicitly mention the relationship to sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for typical usage.

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 only 25% (only acceptLicense has a description). The description does not explain packId, uploadId, or entryPath meanings beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 tool extracts one selected ZIP entry from a remote asset bundle using HTTP byte ranges, caches it locally, and avoids downloading unrelated contents. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like asset_list_bundle_entries (listing) and asset_download_bundle_animation (animation download).

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 mentions 'Requires explicit license acknowledgement', indicating a prerequisite for use. It implies usage after listing bundle entries, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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