dooray_post_file_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that auth is forwarded only to the configured API origin and the HTTPS file-api.dooray.com service (not arbitrary redirects), that output lands in a temporary directory, what the success result contains, and — critically — that transient fetch failures must not be reported as permission denials and terminal 403/404 responses are required before claiming a file is forbidden or missing.

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 long but every sentence earns its place — auth routing, usage scope, sibling disambiguation, output contents, and error-handling rules are all necessary given the tool's complexity. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, though the error-handling tail is somewhat verbose and could be tightened.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, security-sensitive redirect behavior, success output fields, parameter consistency requirements, transport-failure handling, and the exact conditions under which an error should be reported. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational nuance beyond the schema by insisting that projectId and postId be the 'same verified' values from the matching post, tying parameter consistency to correct error interpretation, and clarifying that fileId covers both fileIdList entries and regular attachment IDs.

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-resource pair: 'Download a Dooray post file by fileId through authenticated redirects to a local temporary directory.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling dooray_post_files endpoint by stating that this tool is a direct download and that the other endpoint is 'not a prerequisite' and has no bearing on success or failure.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for every ID from the matching dooray_posts.fileIdList, including inline body images, with the same verified projectId and postId; it also supports regular attachment file IDs.' It also provides an exclusion/alternative clarification by explaining when dooray_post_files results should NOT be used to infer anything about this tool.

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