Download compiled PDF

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the tool compiles (a non-trivial side effect, not just a read) and it is gated to web mode as an opt-in feature. It omits permission/auth requirements, whether the output path is overwritten, and what happens if compilation fails.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the environmental caveat second. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the mode restriction. The remaining gap is the relationship to the `compile` sibling, which leaves the agent's tool-selection decision underspecified.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents `project` (ID, URL, or name, with env default) and `output_path` (with cache default). The description adds no format or default information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete two-part action: compile the project and save the PDF to a local path, which is more specific than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `compile`, so an agent cannot tell whether download_pdf recompiles or reuses existing output, which is exactly the decision it needs to make.

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?

It gives one real gating condition — 'Web mode only (opt-in, see README)' — which tells the agent this tool may be unavailable in some environments. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over `compile`, no prerequisites, and the opt-in detail is deferred to an external document rather than stated here.

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