alefba_download_word

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), the API endpoint, the conditional behavior of save_path (local save), and the requirement that the document be processed. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but for a download tool the behavioral disclosure is fairly complete.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded. It consists of clear sentences covering purpose, API call, return behavior, prerequisite, and optional parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition. The bilingual addition (Persian) does not hurt conciseness as it's a repetition.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, 1 required, no enums, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: prerequisite (processed), behavior for save_path, and instance targeting. It leaves out possible error conditions or permission details, but for a download tool this is sufficient. The presence of output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: document_url (implicitly the document to download), save_path (if provided saves locally), and instance (optional instance name). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about the format/source of document_url.

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?

The description clearly states the tool downloads a document as Word (.docx) file, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling download tools like alefba_download_excel or alefba_download_pdf by specifying the format. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description mentions a prerequisite (document must be processed) and the optional instance parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to other download alternatives (e.g., when to use alefba_download_word vs alefba_download_pdf). The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative referral.

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