List downloads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that `all` merges active, waiting, and stopped lists into one response, but says nothing about return format beyond that, side effects, or operational constraints.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the `all` nuance immediately after. No filler.

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 single-parameter read/list tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the action and the key enum behavior. It could mention what a list entry contains, but no output schema exists and the complexity is low.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the `state` enum and default. The description adds meaning only for the `all` value (merging three queues), which is marginal added value over the schema's 'Which download queue to inspect'.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List downloads') scoped by state, which is immediately actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like aria2_status or aria2_global_stat, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied by 'List downloads by state' and the default state is inferable from the schema, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus aria2_status or aria2_global_stat, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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