jobs_download_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is written to a local file and that parent directories are created. However, it does not disclose if the file is overwritten, the potential for long downloads, or any side effects beyond writing. Some gaps remain.

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 consists of two tightly-written sentences. The first sentence immediately defines the primary purpose, and the second provides necessary context about prerequisite data and legacy information. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and parameter semantics well, but it does not cover the return value (if any) or error scenarios (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist). Given no output schema and no annotations, some completeness is missing, though the core usage is clear.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that job_id must be from a completed job, that filenames come from jobs_get's artifacts map, and that output_path will create parent directories. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 action ('download') and the specific resource ('completed managed job's artifact by filename to a local file'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning that filenames are discovered via jobs_get, and it notes that legacy refs are retired, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: after a managed job is completed and after retrieving filenames from jobs_get. It implies the job must be completed (reinforced in parameter description). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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