Download a Doc2x-provided URL (e.g. from doc2x_convert_export_result) to a local file path.
Download a Doc2x-provided URL (e.g. from doc2x_convert_export_result) to a local file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A URL returned by doc2x_convert_export_result (may contain escaped '\u0026'). | |
| output_path | Yes | Absolute path for the output file. The file will be overwritten if it exists. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Input schema / properties / url / minLengthRemoved value: -1v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, that an existing file is overwritten, whether directories must exist, auth needs, or what is returned. The overwrite caveat exists only in the schema, not in the description.
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 the action, source, and destination in that order, and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented parameters, the core is covered. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what it returns (path? bytes? success flag) and confirm the overwrite behavior, which it leaves to the schema.
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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful constraint beyond the schema: the URL is expected to be 'Doc2x-provided' (i.e., from doc2x_convert_export_result), narrowing acceptable inputs.
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 (Download) and resource (a Doc2x-provided URL) with a defined destination (local file path), and ties the input to the sibling doc2x_convert_export_result. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the file-writing siblings like doc2x_materialize_convert_zip, which likely also produce local artifacts.
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 '(e.g. from doc2x_convert_export_result)' implies the tool should be used after that call, giving implied sequencing. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer the materialize_* siblings instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.