download_annotation_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the operation and format, omitting details such as network dependency, file size implications (despite a warning in the schema), authentication needs, or that the file is saved locally via the filePath parameter.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 3 enum-constrained parameters, absence of output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the what and where but lacks deeper context (e.g., what an annotation volume contains, how it relates to other downloads, or expected file size for different resolutions). It is minimally complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three parameters (ccfVersion, resolution, filePath). For instance, it does not explain the significance of different CCF versions or the resolution options.

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'), the resource ('brain annotation volume'), the format ('NRRD'), and the source ('Allen Common Coordinate Framework (CCF)'), which distinguishes it from sibling download tools like download_atlas_image or download_section_image.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context for choosing this volume type over others, or exclusions.

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