download_app_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a download operation with no mention of side effects, overwriting, or permissions. While it implies read-only behavior, it does not confirm safety or detail what happens on disk, resulting in moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise, one line that immediately states the core function and key constraint (scope required, step 1). It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'scope' exactly refers to, how the output is structured, or the overall workflow beyond 'Step 1'. Many important details are 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 57% (8 of 14 parameters described). The description adds context for 'scope' (REQUIRED, ask user) but does not explain most parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate fully for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 downloads full source of an app scope to disk, including all groups and dependencies. It specifies 'scope REQUIRED — ask user' and contrasts with 'Step 1, not portal,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_portal_sources.

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 some usage guidance: scope is required and the tool is a first step, not for portals. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with sibling tools like download_attachment or get_widget_bundle, leaving ambiguity.

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