get_libraries_by_id_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. But beyond the endpoint, the description adds no behavioral context: no mention of response format, whether a large artifact is streamed, auth requirements, or that this is a binary download rather than a JSON response.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the 'Args: id: Path parameter' line duplicates what the schema already states. It is concise at the cost of omitting needed semantics rather than being appropriately compact.

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 single-parameter, annotated read operation the surface area is small, but the description leaves the core ambiguity unresolved: what does downloading a library return and when would an agent choose this over related download or library tools? Even with an output schema present, the description is not informative enough on its own.

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 0% and the description only says 'id: Path parameter', which repeats the schema's type/title without explaining that id is the library identifier or how it is formatted. The meaning is inferable from the endpoint path, but the description does not actually provide it.

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 identifies an endpoint and resource ('GET /api/libraries/{id}/download') and clearly implies download, but 'Get libraries download' is vague and mostly restates the tool name. It doesn't say what a 'libraries download' is, so an agent cannot be sure whether it yields an archive, a file stream, or 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?

No when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is provided. Although siblings like get_items_by_id_download and get_backups_by_id_download exist, the description never explains that this tool is for downloading a library as opposed to other download operations.

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