Download Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'list' which indicates a read-only operation, and the HTTP method GET further reinforces this. No side effects are mentioned, but none are implied or expected beyond a status query.

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, concise sentence that includes the HTTP method and endpoint. It contains no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a simple status-listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It names the action and resource, though it does not specify the structure of the returned data. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable and not a significant gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no extra parameter information because none exists.

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 lists queued/in-progress CivitAI downloads, which is a distinct function from sibling tools like download and download_cancel. The verb 'list' and the resource 'download/status' are unambiguous, making the purpose immediately apparent.

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 for checking download status but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like download or download_cancel. However, the endpoint and verb make the intended scenario clear (monitoring ongoing downloads), so it is well-guided without being overly verbose.

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