module_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses that no-args downloads nothing, that download writes multi-gigabyte files into the models folder often over a network share, that confirmation is mandatory, and that all model build variants are offered rather than a hidden default. This is strong side-effect and safety transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds exactly the operational details needed to avoid unsafe calls. Each sentence carries information; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The no-annotation, no-output-schema context makes the description the only source of behavior, and it covers invocation modes, side effects, file source, and build choices. However, the `preset` parameter is left ambiguous, and there is no indication of the return/listing format beyond 'lists what 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the prose must explain the parameters. It explains `label` and `confirm` well, but never describes the `preset` parameter—it only mentions 'the active preset'—so one of three parameters remains semantically unexplained.

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 opening sentence names a specific action — find and optionally fetch — a concrete resource (VAE/text encoder) and a scoping context (what the architecture needs). The no-arguments behavior makes the tool's role unmistakable and sets it apart from siblings like module_check.

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 clearly distinguishes the safe no-argument listing mode from the mutating download mode and states the exact precondition (`label` plus `confirm=True`). It does not name an alternative sibling for other cases, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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