scanner_download_preview

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the artifact lands in the server's download directory and gets a derived default filename. However, it says nothing about what happens if the file already exists (the overwrite flag exists), whether the download can fail on missing previews, or how the resulting path is reported; the 'same rules as ...' clause pushes the rest onto a sibling description.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and artifact first and the parenthetical default kept tight. Minimal waste, though the trailing cross-reference is a partial substitute for information rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

A file-writing tool with no output schema, three parameters at 0% schema coverage, and openWorldHint=true needs more: how overwrite and filename interact, what scan_file_id is, and what the caller gets back (path, bytes, URL). The definition leaves these to an external sibling reference an agent may not have in context.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It hints at the filename default ('scan-<id>-preview.jpg', ambiguous whether id is the scan or scan_file_id) but never explains the overwrite parameter or what scan_file_id must reference.

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?

Names a specific verb (download) and resource (a scan's panoramic preview JPEG) plus the destination (the server's download directory). This distinguishes it from scanner_download_scanfile by artifact type, though the distinction is by resource only and not reinforced with an explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it wants the preview rather than the full scan file. The phrase 'same rules as scanner_download_scanfile' defers to a sibling instead of stating when to pick preview versus scanfile, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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