cc98_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the download action, return of save path, and the key constraint about preserving original files. However, it does not discuss overwrite behavior, error handling, or permission requirements.

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 concise, with the main action stated first followed by necessary context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (save path). It covers the essential behavioral note about file preservation. Could optionally mention error behavior, but overall sufficient for a download tool.

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 url, dir, and filename. The description adds meaning by stating the source of the url (from placeholders) and the important preservation requirement. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 downloads images/attachments from CC98 posts to local folders, specifying the source (url from placeholders) and return value (save path). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cc98_get_image (which retrieves image content) and other tools focused on topics/users.

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 explains that the url comes from post content placeholders and includes an important directive about keeping original files. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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