Download Media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, blocking or long-running behavior, overwrite semantics for download_directory, or what 'supported sites' actually means. Only the basic read-and-write-to-disk nature is implied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste and no preamble. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in behavior and routing rather than being a deliberate trade-off.

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?

The output schema relieves the need to describe return values and the schema covers all parameters, but for a network-facing download tool with no annotations and nine closely related siblings, the definition omits failure modes, restrictions, and tool-selection context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the audio_only MP3 conversion and download_directory default. The description adds only a slight hint about which sites are supported, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('video or audio') and names example sources (YouTube, Rumble), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like media_downloader_download_video, media_downloader_download_all, or watch_media, leaving the agent to guess among near-identical download tools.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions any alternative. With ten sibling tools in the media_downloader family, the absence of routing criteria is a real gap.

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