LM Studio: download progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavior of its own: for a progress-reporting tool it does not say whether a call is a one-shot snapshot or blocks until completion, whether terminal states (completed/failed) are reported, or what the caller should do after the download finishes. Only the link to download_model carries any informational weight.

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?

One short fragment that is entirely front-loaded with the key fact and contains zero filler. It is arguably too compressed rather than too long, so it earns credit for efficiency but not for completeness of phrasing.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: what it reports and where job_id comes from. However, with no output schema the description should at minimum hint at what progress information is returned, and it is silent on polling or terminal-state behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema as being returned by download_model. The description merely restates that relationship rather than adding format or reuse details, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (download progress) and anchors it to the originating tool, download_model, so an agent can tell it reports on a download job rather than general server or task state. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from the similarly-named task_status or server_status siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase "started with download_model" implies the prerequisite (a job_id from download_model) and thereby signals the context in which to use it. It gives no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of task_status as an alternative, and no polling guidance, leaving usage largely implied.

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