file-download-stdio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality (getting download links and supporting direct downloads) and some behavioral aspects (default directory, permission requirements). However, it lacks important behavioral details such as: whether this is a read-only or write operation, what happens when 'auto' is false versus true, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key behavioral aspects. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by configuration details. There's minimal redundancy, though some information overlaps with the schema descriptions.

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?

Given the complexity of a file download operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (critical without output schema), doesn't describe error conditions, doesn't clarify the relationship between getting download links versus direct downloading, and provides minimal behavioral context for a tool that presumably performs file system operations.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the default download directory (.mcp-downloads) which is already in the schema's 'downloadDir' description, and reinforces that 'auto' controls direct downloading. No additional parameter semantics, constraints, or usage examples are provided beyond what's in the structured schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取云盘中指定文件的下载链接并支持直接下载文件' (get download links for specified files in cloud storage and support direct file downloads). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get/obtain) and resource ('云盘中指定文件' - specified files in cloud storage), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-download-url' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides implied usage context by mentioning default behavior (default download to .mcp-downloads folder) and prerequisites (download directory must have read/write permissions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-download-url' or 'file-save', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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