loopgrid.get_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so reasonably well: it states that the tool writes a portable ZIP to a local directory and that raw disclosure payloads are excluded by default. It could add side-effect details (e.g., whether existing files are overwritten or whether the directory must be configured), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences lead with the primary action and destination, then add the key default behavior. Every phrase carries information, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter download tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what is downloaded, where it goes, and a key default. It does not explain the full contents of the ZIP or prerequisites like a pre-configured directory, but these are minor given the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains include_payloads via 'Raw disclosure payloads are excluded by default' but never explicitly names or maps either parameter. The decision_id is self-explanatory from the schema, and the boolean's default behavior is partially clarified, but the compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Download') and identifies the concrete resource ('a portable LoopGrid evidence ZIP for a decision') plus the destination ('the configured local evidence directory'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the record_* and verify_evidence siblings, which are different verbs and resources.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it. The phrase 'for a decision' gives minimal context, but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when downloading is appropriate.

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