download_project

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the return is a ZIP archive of complete source, and historyVersion targets project history rather than document OT history. It still says nothing about permissions, download size, or whether historical ZIPs differ structurally from current ones.

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 sentences, zero filler. The two operating modes are stated first and the trickiest semantic pitfall (historyVersion vs OT version) is front-loaded where it is most likely to be read.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly tells the agent the payload is a source ZIP, which is the key return-value fact. With annotations covering safety, the main residual gap is auth availability for historical versions, which is only hinted at via 'API-accessible'.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully disambiguates historyVersion as a project-history version rather than an OT version and implies omitting it yields the current source, but it never explains the 24-hex projectId format or the version numbering/range.

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 specific verb ('download') and resource ('complete current source ZIP'), and covers both modes: current source or historical version. It implicitly distinguishes itself from download_file by specifying the whole project ZIP rather than a single file, though it never names that sibling.

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 implies when to use it — for a full project archive rather than an individual file — and flags that the historical path requires the version to be 'API-accessible'. It gives no explicit exclusion or named alternative for per-file downloads, so the agent has to infer the boundary with download_file/read_file.

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