download_sample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions downloading, converting to WAV, and returning info_txt plus JSON, but omits side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. Critical gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the action and result. However, could be slightly more structured by separating functionality and return value.

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?

With a single parameter and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and return format, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, and constraints. A download tool might benefit from mentioning file size limits or required permissions.

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%, and the description only says 'by its url' without clarifying expected format (e.g., full URL, path only), validity, or examples. The schema provides the parameter name and title but no description, so the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool downloads a sound from RedPanal.org and converts to WAV. The verb 'downloads' and resource 'sound' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings which likely handle listing, details, and uploading.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audio_detail or list_audios. The description implies use for downloading and converting but offers no when-not-to-use scenarios.

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