Get Download Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on what they can't convey: links are temporary with an expiry, file contents are never returned, and linked assets yield nothing. It omits any auth or rate-limit context, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, then return shape, then narrowing and the edge case. Every sentence adds information with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

Covers the operational essentials for a read-only tool: what comes back (`path`, `size_bytes`, `url`, expiry), that contents are not included, and the linked-asset dead end. Some return detail overlaps with the existing output schema, and the asset/task selection rule is left implicit.

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 carries the burden and does: it explains the `asset_...`/`task_...` ID prefixes and gives concrete glob examples for `paths` (["config/*", "*.safetensors"]). It does not clarify the mutual-exclusivity or optionality relationship between `asset` and `task`, despite zero required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (temporary download links) and immediately splits the two modes: an asset's files vs a task's output files. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like `assets` or `tasks` without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context (use `asset` for asset files, `task` for task outputs) and an explicit exclusion: linked assets fetched from Hugging Face or CivitAI have no download links. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool or stating that exactly one of `asset`/`task` must be supplied.

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