get_proxy_download_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully signals that the URL is temporary and that the operation is a read-like retrieval, but it does not disclose the expiration window, authentication requirements, or how the returned URL behaves. This is adequate but shallow.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'temporary' distinguishes the URL type, and 'proxy file' identifies the object precisely.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description names the return value (a temporary download URL) and the target object. Minor gaps remain around expiration specifics and how this differs from public-file URL tools, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so asset_id and proxy_id are already documented with UUID format and plain descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('temporary download URL'), and a specific target ('proxy file'). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from closely related sibling tools like get_proxy_public_url or get_file_download_url.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_proxy_public_url or get_file_download_url. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the basic statement of what the tool does.

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