scanner_download_scanfile

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

Annotations give only a coarse profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds the substantive detail an agent needs: the file lands in a server-side directory rather than the client, the default filename pattern, path rejection, the no-clobber default with an explicit overwrite escape, full-file streaming, and the returned bytes/path. The write-to-disk behavior is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and the non-destructive default is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 destination and core action come first, followed by the two parameter caveats and the return summary. Every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient, including where output lands and what is returned. It does not say how failures are surfaced (e.g., unknown scan_file_id, insufficient disk space), which is the one operational gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does: filename is described as a plain name with a concrete default ('scan-<id>.tzf') and a hard rejection rule, and overwrite is defined in terms of preserving existing files. scan_file_id is only implicitly characterized as identifying the scan file, which is the remaining gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Download a scan's point-cloud file') and pins the destination ('into the server's download directory (SCANNER_DOWNLOAD_DIR)'). That scope implicitly separates it from scanner_download_preview, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Constraints that shape invocation are stated clearly: 'filename is a plain name ... paths are rejected' and 'Existing files are kept unless overwrite is true.' However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over scanner_download_preview or scanner_scanfile_info, so the usage condition is only implied by the word 'point-cloud'.

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