descargar_archivo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the meaningful side effect (writes the file into MIeL's local folder) and the return shape (path). It is silent on overwrite behavior, permissions/auth needs, error conditions (missing materia or archivo_id), and whether the download is idempotent — gaps that matter for a tool with a filesystem side effect.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the return value, then the parameter provenance hint. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool: the effect and return value are covered even without an output schema. But for a tool that writes to local storage, the absence of any note on overwriting, error handling, or the meaning of `materia` leaves real holes an agent would need to guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain where `archivo_id` comes from, which is genuinely useful and not in the schema. However, `materia` is left completely undefined — neither the schema nor the description says whether it is a name, slug, or ID, and both parameters are required, so the compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ("Descarga un archivo de una materia") plus the destination (local MIeL folder) and the return value (the path). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling `listar_archivos` by declaring that `archivo_id` is obtained there, so an agent can tell listing from downloading.

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?

Gives the purpose-driven use case ("para poder leerlo después") and the prerequisite for the key parameter ("`archivo_id` sale de listar_archivos"), which effectively routes the agent to the right sibling first. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., re-downloading an already-synced file) or what happens if the file already exists locally.

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