cotlet_browser_downloadGets the file that clicking element (a download link or button) or opening url starts: answers its name, type, size and a link valid 15 minutes; CSV, JSON and other text files also as text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | A public http or https address, e.g. https://example.com. | |
| element | No | The element's number from the last read or step answer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorld, non-idempotent and destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral facts the annotations do not carry, namely that the returned link is valid only 15 minutes and that CSV/JSON/other text files additionally come back as text. It does not explain why a download is flagged destructive or what happens to previously returned links/files, so it stops short of fully closing the gap.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the result payload; nothing is redundant. The phrasing ('answers its name, type, size and a link valid 15 minutes') is slightly compressed and grammatically loose, which costs a point on readability.
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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload (name, type, size, 15-minute link, text body for text formats), which is the key thing an agent needs. Gaps remain around size limits, binary handling, and whether `element` and `url` are mutually exclusive, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.
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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only modest meaning, clarifying that `element` refers to a download link or button and that `url` is opened to start the download, without expanding on the element numbering or exclusivity of the two inputs.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Gets the file that clicking element ... or opening url starts') and enumerates what is returned (name, type, size, expiring link, text for text formats). It is clearly the download counterpart to cotlet_browser_upload and distinct from click/navigate, though it never names a sibling 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 describing the triggering action: use it when a click on a download link/button or opening a URL starts a download. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of preferring cotlet_browser_click or cotlet_browser_read when no download is triggered, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.