twitter-video-downloader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior but does not reveal what the tool returns (direct video URL, file path, success message), whether it creates side effects on disk, any authentication needs, or how invalid or non-video tweets are handled. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the action, target platform, and input requirement. Perfectly sized for a simple single-purpose tool.

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 tool has one well-documented parameter and a straightforward action, making the input requirement complete. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return value or output contract, leaving some ambiguity for the agent about interpreting the result.

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%: the single parameter 'url' is already described as 'X(Twitter)推文链接' (X/Twitter tweet link). The tool description merely restates this concept ('根据推文链接') without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (下载/download), a specific resource (X(Twitter)视频/X(Twitter) video), and the required input condition (根据推文链接/from a tweet link). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling downloaders for Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: use this tool to download a video from an X/Twitter tweet link. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions (e.g., unsupported URL types), and no prerequisites such as public visibility or specific tweet URL formats.

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