download_completed_video

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must cover behavioral traits. It mentions downloading and caption generation but does not specify the output format (e.g., file, URL, caption text), authentication requirements, side effects, or error handling. The agent is left uninformed about what to expect from invocation.

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 very concise at 8 words in Spanish, efficiently conveying the action and step sequence. It is front-loaded with 'NUEVO'. While not highly structured, every part contributes to understanding. Minor deduction for lack of separation between download and caption generation details.

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 and a 1-parameter input, the description should explain return values (e.g., file content, caption string) and prerequisite conditions (e.g., video must be fully processed). The sibling tools include check_video_status, but no guidance is given to use it before calling this tool. The 'Paso 3 de 3' hint is insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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 the single parameter 'generation_id' described as 'ID de generacion del video completado'. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 completed video and generates a caption, and identifies it as 'Paso 3 de 3', providing sequential context. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_foxbrizio_caption (which may focus only on caption generation) and check_video_status (which checks readiness).

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 as the final step in a three-step process ('Paso 3 de 3'), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., check_video_status if video not ready) or preconditions (e.g., generation_id must correspond to a completed video). No contraindications or alternative tool references are provided.

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