klax_download_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core side effect (writing to disk) and the returned information (path and hash), but does not explain overwrite behavior, default destination handling, error conditions, or security implications. 'Safely' is vague and unqualified.

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 sentence that states the action and output without any fluff. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, and any note about the output structure (though an output schema exists). An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external knowledge.

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 for the four parameters. It does not explain attachment_id, file_sn, overwrite, or destination_dir beyond the implication that attachment_id identifies an attachment. Critical parameters like overwrite and destination_dir are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 action: downloading lecture material attachments to a local directory and returning the save path and hash. It specifies the resource (attachments) and the output (path and hash), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling listing/search tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the attachment_id must come from a prior listing call, nor does it discuss prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback tools. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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