List captured browser downloads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the folder is shared across 'any game' and persists across sessions and MCP restarts. It also enumerates what is returned. It stops short of stating ordering beyond what the schema implies, error behavior, or auth needs, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus cross-game scope are front-loaded before the sibling pointer and return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, persistence, the follow-up action, and the return fields (name, size, capture time, absolute folder path). Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering nuances beyond the schema and failure behavior on an empty folder.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is already documented with its default and 'newest first' ordering in the schema. The description adds nothing about limit or pagination, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List files captured from the browser into the tool's download folder') and immediately scopes it ('any game'), which distinguishes it from the per-game navigation tools in the sibling set. An agent can tell this apart from download_file, which is named as the companion action.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Use download_file(name|index, path) to copy one anywhere,' which clarifies this is the discovery step before retrieval. It does not state when *not* to use it or any prerequisites, but the context is unambiguous for a read-only listing tool.

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