get-download-url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (gets download links) but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether links are temporary or permanent, authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what format the links are in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 directly address the tool's purpose and parameter options. No wasted words or unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the parameter options in the first sentence.

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 tool that retrieves download links with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (URL format, expiration, etc.), error conditions, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this operation.

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 both parameters completely. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the two parameter options exist ('可以通过文件NID或路径获取'), but doesn't provide additional context about when to choose one over the other or any parameter constraints not in the 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: '获取云盘中文件的下载链接' (get download links for files in cloud storage). It specifies the verb (获取/get) and resource (下载链接/download links for files), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file-download-stdio' 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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions two alternative parameters (nid or fpath) but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file-download-stdio' or 'file-share'. No context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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