shop_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that modules, profiles, and a database dump are copied, that the dump can be large, and that the result is unpacked into a local folder. It stops short of detailing overwrite behavior or permissions, but for a download/copy tool the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, and the three-sentence structure efficiently covers scope, payload types, and output format. Some phrasing such as 'the way the program copies it' is slightly redundant, but it does not add meaningful noise.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs, the unpacked-to-folder outcome, and the key caveat about large database dumps. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as which store 'this store' refers to, but the core calling context is sufficiently 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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds further meaning by unpacking the action values: modules are units/templates/root scripts, profiles are picture profiles, and database is a dump. The folder parameter is only lightly addressed in prose ('into a folder here'), but the schema supplies the default location, so nothing is missing.

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 'Copy the code of THIS store onto this machine', giving a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the payload types: modules, profiles, and database. It also distinguishes itself from load-style siblings by saying the result 'arrives unpacked into a folder here' rather than loading items one by one.

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 makes the use case clear: read a store as files instead of loading it piece by piece, and it calls out that a large store's database dump is large and travels whole. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool fits.

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