Get Browser File Download URL

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the URL embeds an auth token (a security-relevant trait), that a file-state object is returned alongside the URL, and the hard lifetime constraint that files only exist while the browser is alive. These are behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, action stated first, then return shape, then usage, then the lifetime caveat. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact with no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return (URL plus current file state, with `ready` as the existence signal) and the token/lifetime caveats. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for `path` or `browser_id` beyond what the schema already says.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource: 'Get a download URL for a file inside the browser sandbox.' That clearly separates it from list_browser_files, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states concrete usage contexts — hand the link to the user (e.g. clickable in chat) or fetch directly — and tells the agent to check `ready: true` before assuming the file exists. It does not state when to prefer list_browser_files instead, so no explicit alternative routing.

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