Download Registry Part

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: files are written to dest_dir with a sensible filename, returns saved path(s), and step models are downloaded from the asset host. It does not mention overwrite or failure behavior, but does not contradict the 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 compact, front-loaded, and uses a clean bullet list. Every line adds concrete information without repetition or filler.

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 output schema, annotations, and full parameter descriptions, the tool definition is largely complete. It covers the primary behaviors and return path(s), though explicit overwrite behavior and error conditions are not described, which would make it fully rounded.

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%, so parameters are documented, but the description adds real meaning: mapping each enum value to file extensions and text vs. 3D model download, and clarifying that dest_dir must already exist. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('registry part's KiCAD file'), and enumerates each format with its resulting file type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_registry_part, which likely returns metadata rather than writing files locally.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to download registry part assets into a local directory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the format-to-extension mapping and destination requirement give strong usage context.

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