tc_download_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by stating it writes only to the local download folder, defaulting save_dir to TC_DOWNLOAD_DIR, and defaulting file_name to the metadata name. It does not contradict annotations; rather, it clarifies the local-side write behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses an Args block to compactly document parameters and a Returns line for output. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff. The structured format makes it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains all parameters, defaults, side effects, and return format. It even notes provenance of parameters from sibling tools. No important behavior is left unexplained.

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 full responsibility for explaining the 5 parameters. It does so thoroughly: project_id, file_id, version_id (with source tc_list_file_versions and default latest), file_name (with default), and save_dir (with default TC_DOWNLOAD_DIR). This goes well beyond the schema's bare type/title information.

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 and resource: 'Download a file from Trimble Connect to the local disk.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tc_get_file (which likely retrieves content/metadata without saving to disk) and tc_upload_file (which pushes data). The read-only and local-write clarification further disambiguates its role.

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 clear context: it downloads files to local disk and notes the Trimble side is read-only. It also references where to obtain parameter values (file_id from tc_list_folder, version_id from tc_list_file_versions), implicitly guiding use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like tc_get_file or tc_api_get, so it falls short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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