Download Action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the tool as a write operation and lists 'rm' (implying destructive removal), but does not state required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to paused tasks, or any rate/safety constraints. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 zero filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the set of actions without unnecessary elaboration.

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 write-capable tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and a destructive 'rm' action, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but missing guidance on permissions, consequences, and action-specific behavior leaves significant gaps for safe 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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters including host, port, scheme, profile, and task_ids. The description only repeats the action enum values, adding no extra meaning such as default behavior for action or ID format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (batch operate) and resource (download tasks), and explicitly lists the supported actions (pause/resume/retry/rm) plus the write nature ('写操作'). This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like download_list and download_info. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear.

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 list of actions implies the tool is used to pause, resume, retry, or remove download tasks, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as file_task_cancel or download_request. Usage is left to inference.

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