Initiate a new download by providing a URL, with optional save name and concurrent connections for HTTP downloads.
Create a new download task.
Args: url: Download URL (HTTP/HTTPS/Magnet etc). name: Optional save filename. connections: Optional HTTP concurrent connections count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| connections | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, whether downloading starts immediately, queueing behavior, idempotency, or any error conditions. The only extra detail is accepted URL schemes, which is helpful but leaves many behavioral aspects unclear.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is organized and each line adds necessary information without redundancy. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the task starts automatically, any authentication requirements, or what happens when the URL is invalid. These gaps make it only partially complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: url with protocol examples, name as optional save filename, and connections as optional HTTP concurrent connection count. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema types, though it could go further with constraints like accepted values or defaults.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new download task.' This directly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tasks, pause_task, resume_task, and delete_task. The action is unambiguous and immediately identifies the tool's role.
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 description implies when to use the tool (to create a download task) but does not explicitly discuss exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. With siblings covering list/pause/resume/delete/config operations, the need to articulate when not to use this tool is minor, but the guidance is still mostly implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.