Descargar un archivo

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks behavioral details such as whether files are overwritten, authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. Only states action and URL types.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key detail on URL types are front-loaded.

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 straightforward tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the tool's output (e.g., success message or file path), nor error cases or permissions.

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 description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter by specifying acceptable URL types (module view URL or pluginfile.php URL), which the schema only describes as URI. The 'destPath' parameter remains minimally described ('local destination path'). Schema coverage is 50%, so description partially compensates.

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 a file from the virtual classroom to a local path, specifying acceptable URL types. Distinguishes from siblings like dutic_read_resource (inline reading) and dutic_fetch_page (page fetching).

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?

Provides context on when to use (to download files) and acceptable URL formats, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. Siblings are distinct enough.

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