fetch

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it describes checksum verification, sidecar writing, failure behavior on size/backends, and unverified sources. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then lists backends with verification status, then general behavior. Every sentence adds information, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 (many backends, multiple parameters, output schema exists), the description is comprehensive. It covers backend-specific behavior, failure modes, sidecar file, and checksum verification, with no obvious gaps.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds global context about 'max_bytes' and 'force' but does not significantly enhance individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it downloads a resource's files to local disk and returns paths, not contents. It lists specific backends, distinguishing this tool from siblings like search or resolve.

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 provides explicit context about when to use this tool (e.g., downloading from various backends) and mentions failure conditions (e.g., Dryad, Mendeley). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond naming sibling tools.

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