Download Resource

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

The description only states 'download to disk' without detailing side effects (e.g., file saved locally, potential overwrites, authentication requirements, or size limits). With no annotations provided, the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose but under-specifies for a tool with three parameters and no additional context.

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 has multiple parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about file overwrite behavior, success/failure responses, and expected output. The output schema may partially compensate, but the minimal description leaves critical 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 three parameters (url, filename, output_dir) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings or constraints, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is a critical gap.

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 action ('download') and the target ('Ninova file or other authenticated resource to disk'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'read_page' which likely retrieves content without saving. However, 'other authenticated resource' is somewhat vague.

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 such as 'read_resource_text' or 'snapshot_page'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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