download_iso

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 disclosing behavior. It fails to mention whether the download is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens to existing files with the same filename, any required permissions, or how to check the result. This is a significant gap for a download operation.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it could include more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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 is relatively simple (4 parameters) but lacks output schema and annotations. The description does not explain the return value, potential asynchronous behavior, failure modes, or how to verify the download status. The existence of sibling tools like get_iso_download_status suggests important context that is missing.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters (url, node, storage, filename) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor degrades parameter understanding.

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 'Download an ISO file to a Proxmox node' clearly states the action (download), the resource (ISO file), and the destination (Proxmox node). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like list_isos, delete_iso, and get_iso_download_status, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for downloading ISOs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., node/storage availability, URL accessibility). It does not mention that get_iso_download_status could be used to poll the download progress, which is likely relevant.

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