Download Materials Batch

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: results are partial-success capable, file bodies are never passed to ChatGPT, only server-side records (file_id/local_path) are returned, and the local cache is the write target. The annotations only give meta-hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so this description carries real disclosure value about side effects and the follow-up workflow.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return-shape, follow-up workflow, input-mapping, and the video exclusion. Information-dense with almost no filler, though the four-sentence block is packed and could be line-structured for faster scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description still covers side effects, partial success, and the two-step read workflow. It does not explicitly address what happens to locked/needs_resolution or excluded items despite instructing the caller to pass lock fields, leaving a minor gap for edge-case inputs.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by telling the caller how to construct the 'materials' entries (map eclass_get_materials id/title → file_id/display_name, and pass classification/source/lock fields together), which meaningfully guides population of a complex nested array.

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 and resource ('여러 파일 자료를 ... 한 번에 다운로드합니다') with an explicit target destination (MCP 서버 로컬 디스크/캐시) and partial-success semantics. It also names the sibling it is not (eclass_download_video) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-file eclass_download_file via 'batch/한 번에'. An agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit alternatives and the conditions that select them: read the file yourself → call eclass_file_handoff and browse the /files/<token> URL; video content → eclass_download_video. It also directs the caller to source inputs from eclass_get_materials. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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