download-submission-file

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the return format: base64 for binary files, text for text files, with an option to force base64. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that first states the core action, then the return behavior. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant content.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential aspects: what it does and what the response looks like. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of returned content types.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the return format, which is also captured in the 'forceBase64' parameter description. No extra semantic layer is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('actual content of a file attached to a submission'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get-submission-file-info by emphasizing 'actual content' rather than metadata.

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 when to use this tool (when you need the file's content) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context is clear due to the wording 'actual content', which differentiates it from similar-looking tools, though no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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