download_source_zip

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

The description adds a useful authentication prerequisite, TYPLEAF_SESSION, which annotations do not express. However, despite destructiveHint=true it never says whether an existing output_path will be overwritten or otherwise affected, so the agent cannot anticipate the destructive consequence accurately.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Download the full project source as a ZIP file to a local path') and followed by the only prerequisite. No filler or repeated schema data.

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?

With a detailed schema, a clear auth note, and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, an agent has most of what it needs to call the tool correctly. It would be more complete if it stated the overwrite behavior and what the tool returns, but those gaps are minor for a simple file-download operation.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the load. The project_id description is particularly rich with remote ID constraints and local-path exclusions, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete action ('Download'), a precise resource ('the full project source'), a format ('ZIP file'), and a destination ('local path'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. The ZIP qualifier separates it from siblings like download_pdf, download_log, and download_source.

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 project_id parameter description provides explicit when/when-not guidance: only for remote Typleaf projects, never for general local file I/O, prefer local read/grep if a checkout exists, and call list_projects first if unsure. This tells an agent when to invoke the tool and what to do instead, which is more than enough to avoid misrouting.

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