cloud_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding two genuine behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the transfer is resumable (implying pause/resume siblings apply) and the local target is a new file. It still omits what happens on name collision or how failures surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions anywhere, a single sentence is inadequate. The agent lacks volume/remote/local semantics and any detail on resume behaviour, pausing, or destination conflict handling.

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 three required parameters (volume, remote, local) carry no titles beyond their names. The description only loosely implies the local destination path and a remote source; it gives no format, path-convention, or volume-naming information to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb+resource is clear ('inicia una descarga a un archivo local'), and 'reanudable' plus 'nuevo' add nuance. However, it never differentiates itself from sibling o2_download or the other cloud_* tools, so the agent gets no signal about why this variant exists.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as o2_download or cloud_resume. The phrase 'archivo local nuevo' hints that the destination must not already exist, but this is inference, not stated guidance.

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