Download Artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the write destination (NIMBUS_EXPORT_DIR/executions/<id>/) and that a path is returned. It omits overwrite behavior, auth/permission requirements, and any size or rate constraints, so it is only partially transparent for a filesystem-writing operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys action, target, destination, and return value with zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return value is unnecessary, and the description still covers destination and single-file scope. The remaining gap is the lack of any hint about where artifact_name comes from (list_artifacts) before calling this tool.

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 must compensate. The path template implies execution_id selects the output subdirectory and that artifact_name identifies a single file, but no format, naming convention, or valid-value guidance is given for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (one artifact file), and the destination path makes the effect concrete. It is distinguishable from list_artifacts, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative (list_artifacts) that supplies artifact_name. The agent must infer the workflow from the parameter names alone.

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