caselist_download

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It explains that the tool imports cards as new cN ids, implying mutation of the library, but does not disclose side effects such as whether it modifies existing cards, requires network access, or is idempotent. This is a moderate disclosure, but gaps remain.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Download an open-source .docx from OpenCaselist') and efficiently adds source guidance. No unnecessary fluff; though it packs multiple clauses, it remains readable.

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 simple input (one string) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, path sourcing, and outcome. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites like network connectivity, but these are minor given the output schema will convey results.

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?

The only parameter 'path' has 0% schema coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does by specifying the path comes from caselist_team or a search 'download_path', giving practical guidance. However, it does not specify the path format (e.g., URL vs. file path), leaving some ambiguity.

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 action: download a .docx from OpenCaselist and import its cards as cN ids. It specifies the resource (OpenCaselist) and the outcome (cards you can read, analyze, re-cut, or export), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_cards (search) and get_card (retrieve existing).

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?

It provides context on where to get the path (caselist_team or search 'download_path') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_card or export_doc. The intended use is implied by the download/import action, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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