download_binary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the binary is decoded and written to disk, no base64 in context, and returns a structured result. It doesn't detail overwrite behavior, error handling beyond returning an error object, or any authorization requirements, but covers the core behavioral traits adequately.

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 highly concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds key behavioral detail, and the third provides usage guidance and return format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully describes the return value format. The tool has only 4 simple parameters (no enums or nested objects), and the description covers the main usage scenario. No additional information seems necessary for effective use.

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%, meaning the JSON schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description only mentions the parameter names (model, record_id, field, dest_path) without adding any semantics, constraints, or examples. This is a significant gap; the agent must infer meaning solely from names.

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 downloads a binary field from an Odoo record to a local filesystem path. It uses specific verbs ('download') and resource ('binary field value from an Odoo record'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'upload_binary' by specifying the direction of data flow.

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 gives explicit usage context: it's intended as the source step in a cross-instance binary migration, paired with 'upload_binary'. It also notes that no base64 passes through AI context, indicating a constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for different scenarios.

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