canvas_download_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that writes go to the server machine rather than the user's laptop, and it documents defaults for dest_dir and name. However, it omits overwrite behavior, directory-creation semantics, permission requirements, and error handling, leaving meaningful gaps for a file-writing operation.

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 front-loaded with purpose, immediately follows with a critical caveat about write location, and then presents an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, the key server-side write caveat, and all parameters. It misses minor operational details like overwrite behavior and error handling, but is largely complete for a download tool.

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 entirely. It documents all three parameters with clear meaning: file_id as a numeric id sourced from canvas_list_files, dest_dir with its default resolution chain (CANVAS_DOWNLOAD_DIR or ./canvas-downloads), and name with its default (Canvas display name). This fully covers the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Download one course file to local disk.' The scope 'one course file' implicitly distinguishes it from bulk-download siblings like canvas_download_submissions, and it references canvas_list_files as the source for file_id. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling to route to, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by noting file_id comes 'from canvas_list_files,' which is a useful prerequisite. But it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like canvas_download_submissions or canvas_upload_file, and no when-not conditions.

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