Download Video PPT

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading images and assembling a PDF but does not state that files are written to disk, whether it performs network requests, how force affects behavior, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to give an agent confidence about the tool's runtime effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action (download) and the optional secondary action (assemble PDF). No filler or redundant phrasing; it earns its place in a dense, informative way.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what the tool returns, what happens to existing files without force, where default output goes, or any error/edge-case behavior. An agent calling this tool would need to infer a lot from parameter names alone, which is risky for a download operation.

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% and every parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema—e.g., it mentions 'optionally assemble a local PDF' which relates to make_pdf and pdf_path, but it does not clarify the roles of force, output_dir, or the video_id source beyond what the schema already says. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Download PPT replay images for one SJTU video' and the optional 'assemble a local PDF'. It identifies the resource (PPT replay images) and the scope (one SJTU video), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_video_ppt_slices which likely return slice metadata rather than downloading images.

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 (when you need the PPT images for a video) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_video_ppt_slices or video_status are not referenced, so the agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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