pan_download_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description only says it downloads a file; it doesn't disclose what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether it overwrites existing files, whether the download is synchronous or async, or any permission/authentication requirements. For a tool that writes to local disk, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. There's no waste, though it lacks useful behavioral details. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could earn a 5 with more complete usage context.

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 download tool that writes to the local filesystem, the description is minimal. It doesn't specify behavior on missing files, overwrite policies, default download directory location, or what feedback the agent receives on success/failure. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more operational context.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the context that remote_path is for a single file, and local_dir is a local target, but doesn't add much beyond the schema descriptions. Since coverage is high, baseline 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 states a specific verb (download) and resource (single file on 交大云盘) with a target (local directory). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pan_download_dir, which handles directories. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or the scope distinction beyond the phrase '单个文件'.

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 for single-file downloads, and the sibling context shows pan_download_dir exists for directory downloads, but the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs pan_download_dir or mention alternatives. It provides no exclusion criteria or condition-based guidance.

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