Download Add Path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does flag '写操作' (write operation) plus the expected input type (.torrent file), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, whether tasks are idempotent, and any side effects beyond the write marker.

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 carrying the essential verb, source, and write marker with zero waste. It is arguably too terse rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 100%-covered params are handled by the schema. Yet for an unflagged write operation, the description should say more about session/profile requirements or permission expectations to be 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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile, save_dir). The description adds only the source-type context, so 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+resource ('新建下载任务' – create download task) and scopes the source as '从 NAS 本地路径', which implicitly separates it from the URI-based sibling download_add_uri. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 phrase '从 NAS 本地路径' and the example '如 .torrent 文件' imply when this tool applies versus download_add_uri, but the description never explicitly states the alternative or the condition that selects it. Usage is implied, not prescribed.

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