download_layer_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It mentions that the tool downloads and saves to a local path, and that the directory will be created if missing. However, it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any authentication requirements. Some important behavioral aspects are missing.

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 concise (two sentences) with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action and includes the use case. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at what the tool returns. It does not mention any return value or error handling. The parameter descriptions are thorough, but missing output information makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that layerSourceId comes from the sourceId field in get_screen/get_component, that localPath should be absolute and directory creation is automatic, and gives guidance on choosing assetType (e.g., 'svg' for vector, 'png' for bitmap). This enhances understanding beyond the raw 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 what the tool does: downloads a visual asset for a layer from Zeplin and saves it locally. It specifies the resource (layer asset), action (download and save), and origin (Zeplin), leaving no ambiguity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screen (does not download assets).

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 provides a clear use case: when an asset from the design is missing from the codebase. It tells when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the context makes it evident that other tools are for fetching different data.

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