get_download_config

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: non-manager accounts receive a per-user view rather than NAS-wide settings, which materially changes how the agent should interpret the response. No rate limits or failure modes are mentioned, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences: the returned fields first, the permission caveat second, the sibling routing last. Nothing is redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With scope, the per-user vs NAS-wide caveat, and sibling routing all covered, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description does not need to compensate for anything here.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('Download Station global configuration') and an enumeration of the exact settings returned (default destination, BT/HTTP/FTP/NZB/eMule max speeds, eMule and auto-unzip state). This clearly separates it from set_download_config and get_schedule without opening a schema.

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 elsewhere for a related need: 'Use get_schedule for the weekly plan.' It also states the account-permission condition under which the result differs. It stops short of a full when/when-not matrix (e.g., no explicit contrast with set_download_config), so a 4 rather than 5.

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