download_material

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

Beyond the annotations it adds real behavioral detail: the 40MB size limit, cache-reuse behavior for existing copies, and refresh semantics that trigger re-download. This meaningfully enriches an agent's understanding of side effects, though it omits where the file lands and whether overwrites occur.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. Every clause contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain return behavior (file path, download handle) and disambiguate id/fileId. It covers security, size, and caching well but leaves the parameter and return contract incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. It explains only 'refresh', leaving 'id' and 'fileId' undocumented apart from the vague notion of 'own material' — a significant gap when the id pattern distinguishes ubfile/resource/folder/file forms.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('본인 강의자료를 ... 로컬에 다운로드합니다') with added scope (up to 40MB, own material). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'download_materials', leaving ambiguity about which download tool to pick.

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?

It supplies conditional usage ('refresh=true면 다시 받습니다') and a negative constraint ('임의 URL·경로는 받지 않습니다'), which implicitly tells the agent the tool only takes internal IDs. But it never names an alternative or states when to prefer it over sibling download tools.

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