Export a site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the chunked download protocol (manifest, versionId, ZIP URL, base64 chunks, nextOffset), the requirement to pin all chunks to the manifest version, and the security warning about not putting the Bearer token in a URL. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains the manifest/chunk flow, then the version pinning, then access requirements and security. Every sentence earns its place, though the chunked download explanation is a bit long and could be tightened.

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 complex download tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: manifest retrieval, chunked downloads, version pinning, and security. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format of the manifest or the exact structure of the ZIP URL, but the description's step-by-step protocol is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining the relationship between path, version_id, offset, and nextOffset in the chunked download flow, but it doesn't add much per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Download or back up') and resource ('a remote artifact's original files, including binary assets'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like artifact_site_read by emphasizing original-content access and binary assets. It also clarifies the no-path manifest behavior, which is a distinct mode of operation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to download/back up original files, use version_id for historical snapshots, and read the latest version separately before editing. It also warns that original-content access may be stricter than text read access, which helps an agent decide between this and artifact_site_read. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the context is clear enough.

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