Download Info

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, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a safe read-only lookup, not what happens when task_id is unknown or stale, and not that the host/port/scheme/profile parameters form an optional connection profile. '详情' vaguely implies a read, but that is the only signal.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the resource stated first. It is efficiently sized; the only knock is that it is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure one.

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 no explanation, and the schema fully documents the five parameters, leaving the description minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any hint that task_id must reference a task produced elsewhere (e.g. by download_add_uri or download_list) and gives no sibling routing, which a detail-lookup tool in a crowded namespace should provide.

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%, with every parameter (host, port, scheme, profile, task_id) individually documented in Chinese, so the schema already does the semantic work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema is complete.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('查看' + '下载任务详情'), so an agent immediately knows this retrieves detail for an existing download task rather than listing, adding, or acting on one. It stops short of differentiating itself by name from the close siblings download_list, download_stats, and download_action, which is what a 5 would require.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus download_list (enumerate tasks) or download_stats (aggregate numbers), even though those siblings sit right next to it in the same namespace. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer the routing entirely from the tool name.

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