get_download

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: images are returned viewable, non-image content requires the includeContent parameter, and there is a 256KB limit for inline content. It also mentions fallback to metadata. It does not describe error handling for missing downloads or side effects, but the core behaviors are well explained.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the exact purpose, and the second gives the critical usage recommendation. Information is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: image handling, non-image content inclusion with size limit, and fallback to metadata. It lacks details on error cases (e.g., download not found), but this is minor given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context: it explains the practical effect of includeContent (base64 inline vs metadata) and the default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter labels.

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 tool name and description clearly state 'Get a downloaded file.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_downloads and delete_download by specifying the retrieval action. Images are explicitly handled as viewable, and non-image files can be retrieved with content inline, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 actionable guidance: it recommends setting includeContent=true for non-image files to get base64 content with a 256KB limit, and explains that default behavior returns metadata only. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of retrieving a download is clear.

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