Leer un recurso como texto/Markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: downloads, returns Markdown, converts PDFs, avoids token spend on binary, warns for unsupported types, and accepts specific URL formats. It lacks mention of authentication or rate limits but is generally transparent.

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—three sentences that front-load the core purpose (download, Markdown, no token waste) and add detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, supported file types, limitations, and URL formats. It could mention the maxChars truncation behavior explicitly, but the parameter description provides that.

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 50% (only maxChars has a description). The description adds value by clarifying the 'url' parameter accepts module view URLs or pluginfile.php paths, which is not in the schema. This context helps the agent understand valid inputs.

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 course resource and returns its content as Markdown, specifying that it converts PDFs automatically and avoids token waste. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning unsupported binaries and suggesting an alternative.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool when the user wants analysis, summarization, or extraction from course materials. It also notes limitations for unsupported binaries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'dutic_download_file' or 'dutic_pdf_to_markdown', leaving some ambiguity.

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