Recursively download an entire cloud drive directory to your local machine, preserving its subfolder structure. Specify a remote path and optional local target to solve bulk backup or offline access needs.
递归下载交大云盘整个目录到本地（保留子目录结构）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | No | 空间名或 space_id，省略则用个人空间 | |
| local_dir | No | 本地目标目录，省略则用默认下载目录 | |
| max_files | No | 最多下载多少个文件（默认100，上限500） | |
| remote_dir | Yes | 云盘目录路径，如 /论文 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose recursive behavior and subdirectory preservation, which is useful, but it omits other relevant traits such as whether local files are overwritten, authentication requirements, or behavior when max_files is reached.
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 says exactly what the tool does and preserves the most important behavioral detail in a parenthetical. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.
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 description plus fully documented schema is minimally viable for invoking the tool, but gaps remain: no output schema or return-value description, no detail on what happens when max_files is exceeded, and no statement about local-dir creation or overwrite behavior. It is adequate but not rich enough for fully confident autonomous invocation.
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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the concept of the remote directory, which is already captured in the schema.
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 ('recursively download the entire directory') and adds the key scoping detail that subdirectory structure is preserved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling pan_download_file, which is for single files.
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 makes the use case clear: use it when you need a whole directory downloaded recursively. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the strong directory-vs-file contrast with siblings like pan_download_file provides clear context without needing elaboration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.