request_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so richly. It discloses that the token lives in the URL's `#` fragment, that the URL is a secret, that the link is bound to the file's current state and stops working if the file changes, and that it can be used more than once. It also warns about expiration clamping and the credential lifetime limit, which are non-obvious and important behaviors.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage distinction, then adds security and edge-case behavior in an organized way. The shell example is practical and earns its place. No sentence is filler, and the length is justified by the security sensitivity and behavioral nuance.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers all decision-relevant aspects: when to use it, how it behaves, security constraints, parameter semantics, and a usage example. The mention that the result may provide an earlier deadline than requested adds important context. Since an output schema is present, the lack of a return-value breakdown is acceptable.

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?

The schema provides almost no semantic detail, with 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters fully. It defines `path` as a vault-relative path and `expires_in` with its unit, default value, clamping bounds, and interaction with the credential's lifetime. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a short-lived link a person can use to save a vault file.' It immediately contrasts with the sibling `read_file`, which returns bytes to the caller, making the tool's unique niche clear. Even without reading the schema, an agent can distinguish this tool from the other file-related siblings.

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 explicitly states when to choose this tool over `read_file`: use it when the file is for a human, not for the caller, and when `read_file` would waste context or cannot render the content. It also contrasts with upload links and clarifies that this is a read operation usable with a read-only key. The guidance is concrete and actionable.

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