download_tool

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 behaviors: resume support, progress tracking, SHA256 verification, auto-placement, and auto-detection of model type. It also clarifies that 'info' previews without downloading. However, it omits details about authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens on unexpected failures.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('Smart model downloads') and then enumerating sources and operations. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 5 parameters, an operation enum, and no output schema. The description covers the operations and sources adequately for an agent to select and invoke it. However, it does not describe return values or error structures, which would be important for a tool with no output schema, but the core selection and invocation context is complete.

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%, with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context (e.g., 'auto-detects type' explains destination defaulting, and operations are described in the schema). It does not provide syntax details beyond the schema but is consistent with it.

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 tool's function: 'Smart model downloads' with specific sources (CivitAI, HuggingFace, direct URLs) and operations (download, info, list-paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_* (file system) and http_tool (generic HTTP) by focusing on model downloads.

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 when to use the tool by listing supported sources and operations, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. For example, it doesn't clarify whether http_tool should be used for non-model downloads, but the context is sufficiently clear for model-related use cases.

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