neurover_download_generation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this performs a write without being destructive; the description correctly adds that the write lands at outputDir/fileName. It does not disclose overwrite behavior for an existing file, what happens if the generation is not yet complete, or any size/rate constraints, leaving notable gaps for a filesystem-writing tool.

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 the step marker and the action front-loaded, then the one non-obvious parameter caveat. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and filesystem side effects, the definition is thin: the required workflowId is never explained and four parameters are undocumented anywhere. The core mechanics are conveyed, but an agent could still mis-supply required inputs or mishandle an existing target 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 0% across 8 parameters, so the schema carries no meaning. The description adds real semantics for 4 of them — messageId as the lookup key, outputDir as the destination, fileName as the output name, and mediaAssetId strictly as a selector among several results — but leaves workflowId (required), nodeId, account and details entirely unexplained.

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: 'Скачать готовый результат генерации' (download the finished generation result), plus the key inputs messageId, outputDir and fileName. The 'ШАГ 4' marker and the note that mediaAssetId only selects among multiple results distinguish it from siblings like neurover_download_media or neurover_wait_generation, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'ШАГ 4' positions the tool in a generation pipeline and mediaAssetId's conditional use is explained, which implies when to call it. However, it never states prerequisites explicitly (e.g. that the generation must be finished, presumably after neurover_wait_generation), nor any when-not case, so the agent must infer the sequencing.

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