download_artifact_file

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavior: it returns a private local file receipt, resolves only internal references, and warns that returned content is untrusted data. That prompt-injection warning is meaningful context 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scope limitation, then the return/untrusted-content note. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return (a local file receipt) and the resolution behavior, but with five parameters and 20% schema coverage the parameter surface is largely unexplained. Adequate for the core action, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 20% (just 'uid'), and the description adds nothing about the five parameters—save_as, max_bytes, artifact_id, name are left undocumented in both places. With coverage below 50%, the description should have compensated and does not.

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+resource ('Download a stored artifact file') and scopes it precisely: internal references resolved, external references not fetched. This separates it from download_file/download_history, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the artifact-file scope and the exclusion of external references, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to the sibling download tools. An agent can infer intent but receives no decision rules.

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