File Download Url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add a real behavioral trait – that a logged-in browser cookie is typically required – which is non-obvious auth context. It does not disclose whether the returned URL is temporary/expiring, single-use, or shareable, which matters for a URL-generation tool.

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 no wasted words; the operation is stated first and the prerequisite second. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that more behavioral detail could have been included without harming readability.

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 full schema coverage handles parameters. The description is minimally adequate for a read-style URL generator, but given zero annotations it leaves gaps around URL lifetime/expiry and how it relates to sibling download tools.

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 host, path, port, scheme, and profile in detail. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameter meaning or the interaction between host/scheme/port, 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 ('获取文件下载 URL' – get a file download URL), which is clearly distinguishable from file_upload, file_list, and photos_preview_url. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the nearest sibling (download_files / file_share_info), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 parenthetical '(通常需浏览器已登录 cookie)' signals a prerequisite (browser session/login cookie) that an agent needs before calling, which is useful context. But it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to alternatives like download_files or file_share_info, so usage remains only implied.

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