download_asset

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 512 MiB size limit and the overwrite policy ('never overwrite unless overwrite=true'). These are critical for safe invocation and complement the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds two key constraints. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: destination type, size limit, and overwrite semantics. It does not describe success/error return values, but the direct wording and schema coverage make it reasonably complete for correct invocation.

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 67%, with assetId and path already documented. The description adds semantics for the overwrite parameter by explaining its effect, which partially compensates for the missing schema documentation on that parameter. However, it adds no further detail on assetId or path.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Download an asset to a local file'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like download_build or store_download, but the 'asset' and 'local file' phrasing provides enough distinction for a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_asset, download_build, or store_download. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Download an asset to a local file,' with no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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