get_download_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: some sections are BT-only (trackers, peers) and files applies to per-file BT selection, so an agent knows the response shape varies by protocol. No auth or failure behavior is described.

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 sentences, no filler. The capabilities are front-loaded in one dense clause list, and the prerequisite is placed last as an actionable instruction. Every phrase carries information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still sketches the section groups, which helps the agent decide relevance. Purpose, prerequisite, and protocol-dependent content are all covered; only edge behavior (invalid/unknown task_id) is unaddressed.

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%, so the schema gives only the type and required-ness of task_id. The description compensates meaningfully by explaining where the value comes from ('use list_downloads first to find the task_id'), which is the key semantic an agent needs for this single parameter.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information for a specific download task') and enumerates the exact payload sections returned (detail, transfer, files, trackers, peers), which tells an agent precisely what it gets. It distinguishes itself from list_downloads by scoping to a single task, but does not differentiate from other read siblings like get_download_stats or get_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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite workflow: 'Use list_downloads first to find the task_id.' That is a clear when-to-use signal. It lacks any when-not guidance or comparison to get_download_stats/get_download_config, so the routing is incomplete rather than absent.

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