Download file from NAS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it states the tool does not modify NAS state, overwrites an existing local file of the same name, requires local_dir to exist, and returns a specific shape. This helps the agent predict side effects and retry safety without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. There is slight redundancy between 'Does not modify NAS state' and 'Unlike upload this never changes anything on the NAS,' but overall every major point is covered without excessive length.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations. The description covers the tool's direction, key constraints, retry safety, local overwrite behavior, and return value. Nothing important is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 adds value by clarifying that local_dir must already exist, that remote_path is an absolute NAS path, and that an existing local file of the same name will be overwritten. These are behavioral details tied to parameters that are not fully explicit in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Download a file from the ZSpace NAS to a local directory.' It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings by explicitly framing it as 'NAS -> local' and 'the inverse of zspace_upload.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance: 'Use to pull media or documents off the NAS.' It also names the relevant alternative zspace_upload and explains the key difference in behavior, including that download never changes NAS state and is safe to retry. This is explicit when/why guidance, not just an implied usage.

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