seafile_get_download_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation generates a temporary URL (not a direct file read) and mentions typical validity (1 hour), which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits that would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by behavioral context, and then parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the temporary nature, and the Args/Returns sections provide structured documentation without 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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the temporary nature of the output, and documents parameters and return values. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases) since annotations are absent.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (repo_id and path) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by repeating the parameter names in the Args section without providing additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets 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 states the specific action ('Get a temporary download URL for a file') and distinguishes it from siblings like seafile_read_file (which reads file content directly) or seafile_get_file_info (which retrieves metadata). It specifies the resource (download URL) and the temporary nature of the output.

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 context by mentioning the temporary nature of the URL (typically valid for 1 hour), which suggests it's for sharing or time-limited access rather than persistent retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like seafile_read_file (for immediate content access) or seafile_get_file_info (for metadata).

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