mealie_api_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'controlled local directory' and 'non-sensitive', offering some safety cues, but it does not explain side effects such as file overwriting, return value, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a download tool.

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 short sentence with no redundant words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary details for brevity, so it does not fully earn its place as a standalone guide.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal for a generic download tool with four parameters and no annotations. It lacks information about how to construct the request, what the tool returns, or any constraints, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (output_name, path_params, operation_id, query_params). It only hints at the operation being a binary GET, leaving operation_id's role and other parameter usage completely implicit.

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 specifies a clear verb 'Download' and identifies the resource as a 'binary GET operation', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mealie_api_get that likely return JSON. However, the qualifier 'non-sensitive' is vague and the exact resource is generic, preventing a 5.

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 implies use for downloading binary content from a GET endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over mealie_api_get or mealie_api_request, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage context is only implied, not fully articulated.

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