list_downloads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: pagination with footer totals and next offset, sort direction per sort_by value, and the authorization caveat that non-managers see only their own tasks so an empty list is not proof the NAS is idle. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and tightly packed, with every sentence carrying real information on pagination, sorting, or permissions. It is dense and somewhat long, and the detailed return-table enumeration is partly redundant with the existing output schema, which is the only minor waste.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the definition covers the gaps structured fields leave open: pagination mechanics, sort semantics, and the permission-driven scoping. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

At 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates every allowed status_filter value, all three sort_by modes with their directions, and the offset/limit pagination with a default. It even supplies a concrete example (sort_by=completed, limit=1).

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 ('List download tasks in the Download Station queue') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_download_info and get_download_stats by defining it as a queue listing. An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Provides clear operating context: status filter values, sort_by semantics with a worked example, and the note that a filter or sort spans the whole queue. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. get_download_info for one task), so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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