download_build

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it waits for the artifact, writes to a local path, and does not overwrite existing files unless overwrite=true. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false annotations without contradicting them, though it does not mention potential long-run wait times or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, and the overwrite caveat follows. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core required behavior but omits return value structure, prerequisites for required inputs like sceneIds and name, and the semantics of optional flags. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for key parameters: format (static or npm), outputPath (explicit local path), and overwrite behavior. However, schema description coverage is only 27%, and the description does not explain many other parameters (name, minify, sourceMaps, concatenate, optimizeSceneFormat, primarySceneId), so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Create'), a resource ('static or NPM download build'), and unique behaviors (waiting for the artifact, saving to a local path). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_build to differentiate them; the 'download' and local-save aspects make the purpose distinct enough.

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 implies usage when a downloadable build artifact is needed locally, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives such as create_build or download_asset, leaving usage largely implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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