fetch

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: returns paths never contents, checksum verification, sidecar file writing, per-source fetchability, extraction options with path-traversal guarding, and failure conditions. This is comprehensive.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main purpose, then details sources and behavior. Every sentence adds value, though it is lengthy due to the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more structured, but is effective.

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 complexity, lack of annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: sources, failure modes, parameter interactions, side effects (sidecar), and behaviors (checksum, extraction). An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema: defaults (dest, max_bytes, force, extract), path-traversal guarding for extract, and counting extract size against max_bytes. This provides important nuance for correct invocation.

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 the tool downloads files and returns paths (not contents), enumerates specific fetchable sources (Zenodo, SRA, GEO, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its core function.

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 details on when to use the tool (fetchable sources), conditions like max_bytes and force, and failure modes (e.g., Dryad manifest-only, paywalled literature). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for cases where fetch fails, though it implies them.

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