Download Candidate Images

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true, meaning side effects exist, but no destructive or idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses the browser session for cookies/referer, blocks Google-hosted previews and Google Maps imagery, and accepts flexible input formats for 'candidates'. This goes beyond annotations by specifying what is blocked and how sessions are used.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, yet it packs essential information: destination, browser dependency, blocked sources, and parameter flexibility. No redundant text; every sentence adds value. Structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 complexity of 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the download destination and blocking behavior. However, it omits important context like response details (success/failure), error handling, the effect of the 'limit' parameter, and prerequisites for the browser session. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no output schema and low parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only partially covers 'candidates' by noting it accepts arrays or JSON strings. 'projectName' and 'limit' are left unexplained, lacking any additional context on their format, purpose, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly specifies the action ('Download candidate images'), the target location ('into a project folder under the current MCP working directory'), and the mechanism ('using the connected browser session for cookies and referer when needed'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'save_candidates_json' or 'search_google_images' by focusing on downloading images rather than metadata or searches.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'save_candidates_json' for saving metadata instead. Usage context is only implied by the action (download) but lacks comparative decision criteria.

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