get_download_config

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: non-manager accounts get a per-user view labeled as such rather than NAS-wide settings — an important output-shape caveat an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the permission-dependent view caveat, and the sibling alternative. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the configuration categories returned, and the per-user caveat covers the main behavioral surprise. It could say slightly more about the shape of the speed values, but for a no-argument read tool this is close to complete.

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 meaning for the description to supply; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 (Get) and resource (Download Station global configuration) and enumerates the exact fields returned: default destination, BT/HTTP/FTP/NZB/eMule max speeds, eMule and auto-unzip state. This clearly separates it from sibling config tools like get_schedule and set_download_config.

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?

"Use get_schedule for the weekly plan" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not mention set_download_config for modifying these same settings, which is the nearest sibling and a likely confusion point, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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