klas_download_material

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

The description discloses the key side effect (writing to a local directory) and the integrity-oriented return value (hash), which is useful because no annotations are present. However, it does not explain overwrite behavior, destination defaults, authentication needs, or failure modes, and 'safely' is asserted without detail.

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 front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, target resource, destination, and result with no redundant clauses. Apart from the mildly vague 'safely', every component earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value structure, but the description still leaves material gaps: auth prerequisites, overwrite/destination defaults, and file_sn semantics. For a side-effecting download tool with no annotations, these gaps prevent fully confident invocation.

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% and the description adds no explicit parameter documentation. It loosely relates to destination_dir ('local directory') and overwrite ('safely'), but it does not explain the relationship between attachment_id and file_sn or when defaults apply.

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 action (download), a specific resource (lecture-material attachments), and the result (local save path plus hash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list materials or fetch overview/auth/deadline data.

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 intended use is implied by 'download material attachments', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite step, or exclusion relative to siblings like klas_list_materials. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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