download_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content is base64-encoded under 'data' key, includes MIME type and filename. This is good transparency for a read-like operation, though no explicit mention of side effects or permissions.

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 brief and well-structured: a clear first sentence followed by bullet points for token formats. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers return format and token sources but omits the meaning of 'alias' and any usage examples. It is adequate but not fully complete for a standalone tool.

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%, and the description only explains the 'token' parameter with detailed format examples. The 'alias' parameter is not described at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates but not sufficiently.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Download the raw content of an exportable object, TLS secrets, or RTP audio.' It distinguishes from siblings by listing exact token formats and sources, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool by listing token sources, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like 'export_objects' or 'extract_fields' are not compared, leaving some ambiguity.

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