bb_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that paths are returned; it says nothing about authentication requirements (bb_login), whether files are written to disk or overwritten, rate limits, or what 'local' means relative to the server/client.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. It is efficient, though it could have used the spare space to document parameters rather than stopping so early.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does state the return value ('local paths'), which covers the output side. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing parameter meanings and side-effect details leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured data and the description must compensate. It only vaguely implies a content item via 'one content item' and never explains what 'course' means or the expected identifier format for 'content_id'.

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 (every file attached to or embedded in one content item), which is more precise than the bare name bb_download suggests. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like bb_sync, which could plausibly also fetch content, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus bb_sync or bb_browse, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. 'One content item' weakly implies the granularity, but the agent must infer everything else.

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