noark5_download_dokumentobjekt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool resolves a HATEOAS link, downloads binary content to disk, creates a temporary file in /tmp when no path is given, and explicitly warns that temporary files are not automatically removed. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line summary, a mechanism note, a prerequisite pointer, and structured Args. Every sentence provides actionable information; the temporary-file cleanup warning earns its place because it prevents an unanticipated side effect.

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 two-parameter download tool with no annotations, the definition covers the target resource, how the URL is discovered, the download behavior, the output location rule, cleanup responsibility, and return value. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensate. It does: dokobj_url is explained as the self-href URL of the dokumentobjekt, and output_path is explained with its optionality and default temp-file behavior. Both parameters receive meaning beyond their raw schema definitions.

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 file content from a dokumentobjekt.' It then explains the mechanism (resolving the referanseFil HATEOAS link) and the disk-write behavior, which clearly distinguishes it from generic get/entity tools and from the sibling noark5_upload_file.

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 gives clear usage context by instructing the agent to run noark5_list_dokumentobjekter first to obtain the target URL. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the prerequisite workflow is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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