download_pdf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds context about the prerequisite (compile_project) and authentication (TYPLEAF_SESSION), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing files) or return values. Since annotations cover the safety profile partially, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by essential prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential steps: what it does, what to call first, and what authentication is required. It doesn't mention error conditions or return values, but those are typically not needed for a download operation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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%: both project_id and output_path have detailed descriptions in the schema, including the full context for project_id. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Download'), a resource ('the compiled PDF'), and a destination ('to a local path'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like download_source and download_log by specifying 'compiled PDF', making the tool's 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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call compile_project first' and 'Requires TYPLEAF_SESSION.' This tells the agent when and under what conditions to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the prerequisites are clearly stated.

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