remote_file_download

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 transparently explains the transfer mechanisms (SFTP for SSH2, base64 for child process), which is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not cover potential side effects like file overwriting, but for a download operation this is acceptable.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points and a short example. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, with no output schema and three well-documented parameters. The description covers both session types, gives an example, and explains the transfer methods, which is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical here.

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 additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it reiterates the intended use case with an example. The schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Download' and the resource 'a file from the remote server to local machine', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like remote_file_upload (opposite direction) and remote_file_list (listing files).

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that it works with both SSH2 and child process sessions and gives a concrete example ('Download logs or config files'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for common use cases.

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