download_portal_sources

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. The description is very minimal, only hinting at targeted download behavior. It does not disclose whether downloads are destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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 very concise with two short sentences. The first sentence is vague, and the second provides a contrast with a sibling and a parameter hint. While brevity is good, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. The structure is front-loaded but not efficient in conveying key information.

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?

Given the complexity of 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain default behaviors, the effect of boolean flags, what the output looks like, or any usage context. The tool is not adequately described for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 only 36%, meaning most parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value by hinting that widget_ids specifies a single widget. For other parameters like scope, output_dir, incremental, reconcile_deletions, the schema already has descriptions, but the tool description does not add further meaning. The remaining 9 parameters with no schema descriptions receive no help from the tool description.

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 'Targeted portal widgets/providers' which, combined with the name, implies downloading specific widgets. It distinguishes from 'download_app_sources' for whole app downloads. However, the verb 'download' is not explicitly stated in the description, relying on the name.

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 description mentions when to use this tool (targeted) versus download_app_sources (whole app), providing one key distinction. However, it does not provide any other usage guidance, such as prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose among the many sibling tools.

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