box_file_download_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads files and optionally saves them locally, and describes different return behaviors for text files, images, and unsupported files. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limitations, or error handling beyond the unsupported file case.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameters well and describes return value variations. However, it lacks information about authentication, permissions, and error scenarios beyond unsupported files.

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 must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters: file_id identifies the file, save_file controls local saving, and save_path specifies where to save with fallback to temporary directory. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Download a file from Box') and resource ('a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_info_tool or box_file_upload_tool. It explicitly mentions the optional local saving functionality, which adds specificity beyond just downloading.

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 like box_file_thumbnail_download_tool or box_file_text_extract_tool. The description mentions the optional save functionality but doesn't explain when to enable it versus just retrieving content directly.

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