dosare_files_download

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

Because there are no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core action (copy a file to a local path) and the example implies it is read-only, but it omits important details such as whether an existing local file is overwritten, required filesystem permissions, or whether any server state changes. The brevity still leaves room for assumptions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that states the core action and adds a valuable example, with no redundancy or filler. It is compact and front-loaded with the tool's 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?

For a file download tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description is almost sufficient. It covers the main workflow and clarifies all parameters, and nothing critical is missing beyond niceties such as error behavior or file format. However, with no annotations it leaves a few operational aspects unexplained, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 documents only 2 of 4 parameters (id, companyId). The description clarifies fileId (the specific file within the dosar) and outFile (the local path), thereby giving meaning to the two undocumented parameters. It does not give constraints or defaults for those fields, but the added context largely compensates for the schema gaps.

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 names the verb 'download', identifies the resource ('a file kept in a dosare'), and specifies the destination ('to a local path'). It also embeds a concrete workflow (sign with agent_sign_pdf, upload via dosare_files_upload) that makes the tool's role distinctive among a long list of siblings such as spv_documents_download and declarations_download_pdf.

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 a clear real-world scenario ('e.g. to sign it with agent_sign_pdf, then upload the signed copy'), which tells the agent when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions not to use it, but the dosare-specific context is strong enough to differentiate it from the many download tools.

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