download_document_sqlite

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameters and the return format (dict with base64-encoded content), implying a read-only download with no destructive side effects. However, it omits details like potential errors, size limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured with sections for prerequisites, args, and returns. It conveys necessary information concisely without extraneous text. Minor improvement could be removing 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels since the structure is already clear, but it remains efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description covers the return format (dict with status, message, base64 content). It also includes prerequisites and parameter explanations. For a straightforward download tool, this is mostly complete, though details on error cases or performance characteristics are missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: doc_id (document ID), nohistory (excludes history), template (downloads as template without user data). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values, making the tool usable.

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 a Grist document in SQLite format. It uses a specific verb ('Télécharge'), resource ('document Grist'), and output format ('SQLite'). This distinguishes it from siblings like download_document_excel and download_table_csv, which target other formats.

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 lists a prerequisite (list_documents to get a valid doc_id), which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like download_document_excel or download_table_csv, nor does it state when not to use it. More explicit differentiation would improve this dimension.

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