Download skill

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: that the output is a signed URL rather than raw bytes, and that the archive format is ZIP. It does not mention expiry of the signed URL, but that is a minor omission.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, the version branch second, and a one-line read-operation tag. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (a signed URL) and the archive format. It does not mention the required output_file destination at all, which is the one gap for a tool that writes results to a private file.

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 every parameter — including version_id's draft default and output_file's private-file semantics — is already documented. The description restates the version_id behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource — generate a signed URL for a skill's contents as a `.skill` (ZIP) archive — and names the sibling resources it is not (skills vs. generic files/artifacts). An agent can distinguish it from download_file and download_artifact_file without opening a schema.

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 explains the version_id vs. draft branch, which is useful selection context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over download_file/download_files. Usage is implied by the resource type rather than explicit.

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