sandbox_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint, the 4 MiB cap, plus the scoping of the source to the guest C:\work area. It does not explain oversize failure behavior or what the returned artifact reference looks like, but the size limit is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first, zero filler, and the size constraint folded in without a second clause. Nothing to trim.

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 trivial one-parameter tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers operation, direction, scope and the size limit. The main gaps are the format of the returned artifact identifier and error behavior on oversize, but these are minor against an otherwise tight definition.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It adds meaning by indicating the path resolves to a guest C:\work file, but gives no format guidance (absolute vs relative, drive handling, quoting). Partial compensation, not full.

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 (Copy), source (guest C:\work file) and destination (host-owned opaque artifact), so the direction is unambiguous and clearly opposite to the sandbox_upload sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, but the operation is decipherable without opening a schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like sandbox_artifact or sandbox_collect_evidence. Usage is only implied by the verb; an agent must infer that this is the tool for pulling a file off the guest.

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