download_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the payload is a zip bundle of all app files, and the operation writes a file to a caller-supplied path (a local side effect), plus the required apps:read scope. It does not say whether an existing file at dest is overwritten.

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 and result, with the scope note appended in parentheses. 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?

For a three-parameter, fully documented, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output artifact, destination side effect, and permission scope. Only overwrite semantics for dest is a meaningful omission.

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%, and the schema already documents id, dest (explicitly "Path of the .zip file to write"), and workspace_id. The description's mention of "given path" and "zip" adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Downloads the application's files as a zip") plus the destination behavior ("writes it to the given path"). This clearly separates it from siblings like download_snapshot, blob_download_url, or read_file, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource naming, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over read_file, get_file_tree, or upload_files. The only directive-style content is the scope note (apps:read), which speaks to permissions rather than tool selection.

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