works_file_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool 'follows the storage redirect with auth,' which is useful. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or the return format on success/error.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Download a file to a local path' followed by a useful parenthetical about auth redirect. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and performs a side effect (writing to a local path), the description is under-specified. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether it overwrites files, how optional parameters (user, sharedrive_id) affect the operation, or any error conditions. The note about auth redirect is the only extra context.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (file_id, out_path, user, sharedrive_id) or their roles in the download. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the 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 action: 'Download a file to a local path' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like works_file_upload and works_files_list by focusing on the download operation, which no other sibling provides.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when a file needs to be downloaded to a local path) and mentions the auth redirect behavior, which is a relevant usage consideration. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since there is no alternative download tool among the siblings, the context is sufficient.

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