下载目录

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: recursion, a random staging destination, per-item skip/failure reporting, and explicitly unlimited file count and byte size. This last point is a meaningful warning absent from the structured fields. It still omits overwrite behavior and retry semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the limits clause last. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-separated run-on is slightly heavy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations already declare the safety profile. The description covers recursion, staging target, reporting, and limits — enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps like overwrite/conflict 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (server, remote_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no path syntax or alias details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (递归下载) and resource (目录) and adds the destination (随机 staging), so an agent can distinguish it from download_file. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the directory-level scope 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase '递归' and '不限制文件数量或总字节' hints this is for bulk directory fetches rather than single files, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to download_file as the alternative.

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