download_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses automatic session-cookie auth for internal links, handling of Google Drive confirmation pages, the default save directory, and the return fields. It stops short of mentioning overwrite behavior or failure modes, but covers the core behavioral expectations for a download tool.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph of three sentences. It immediately states the main action, then efficiently details URL types, save behavior, and return values—no filler words or redundant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (handles three URL types) and lack of output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers URL handling, authentication, save location, and return values. It omits potential error cases or size limits, but for a download tool, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'url' parameter semantics by enumerating accepted URL categories, and the phrase 'by default' hints that save_dir can override the default path. However, it never explicitly names or explains the save_dir parameter, leaving some ambiguity about its expected format or behavior.

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 'Download a material file by URL' and elaborates on three specific URL types, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_materials (which lists) and authenticate (which handles auth) by focusing on the actual file download action.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a material URL (internal, Google Drive, or direct). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling set, download_material is the only tool for downloads, so the intended usage is well implied.

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