show_download_config

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 key behavioral traits: real-time performance (<1s), return values (path, free space, permissions), and operational checks (configuration validity, file system permissions). However, it doesn't mention error handling or edge cases.

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?

Front-loaded with key information (purpose and real-time performance), followed by usage guidance and return details. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Returns' mentioned twice) slightly reduces efficiency, but overall well-structured and concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage context, performance, return values, and parameter semantics. It could improve by detailing error conditions or output format specifics, but it's largely complete for a read-only configuration 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'projectName' parameter is optional and specifying what the tool returns (path, free space in GB, permissions), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's basic description.

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 specific action ('show download directory configuration and disk space') and resource ('download directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'download_list' or 'download_status' by focusing on configuration and space checking rather than download operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('before starting large downloads to ensure sufficient space') and provides context on its purpose (configuration validity and file system permissions checks), with no misleading guidance.

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