download_knowledge_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a download URL but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., URL expiration, permissions required, error handling) or what happens if the file does not exist. For a tool that likely triggers a network request, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure such as bullet points or explicit sections. While it is front-loaded with the action, it may be too brief to convey all necessary information, especially since it is the only source of context beyond the schema.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent that the tool gets a download URL for a knowledge file. However, it does not clarify the response format, any constraints (e.g., file size, access restrictions), or how it compares to other download tools in the same server, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter (id) with a description ('ID del archivo de conocimiento'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming it's a knowledge file. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the verb (descargar/download) and resource (archivo de conocimiento/knowledge file), and specifies that the tool obtains a download URL. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like download_conversation_file or download_email_attachment, limiting its distinctiveness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_knowledge_files, download_conversation_file). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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