moodle_download_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by stating '上書きしない' (does not overwrite), which pins down what happens to an existing file — a detail the annotations do not encode. It does not cover auth requirements, directory creation, or error behavior on failure.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler — destination first, then the input requirement, then the overwrite caveat. Every sentence carries an actionable fact.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the non-overwrite behavior adequately. It stops short on what the call returns (a path? a confirmation?) and on any authentication or failure-mode context, which matters for a tool that writes to disk.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it names the output destination, explains cmid and url, and adds a mutual-requirement rule ('one of the two') that the schema's anyOf plus single required field does not enforce. It still doesn't say what form cmid or url should take.

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 concrete verb and resource: saving course material to a local output path. No sibling tool (login, deadlines, course, announcements, activity) overlaps with file download, so sibling differentiation is implicitly satisfied, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

'cmid or url is required' is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the browsing siblings, and no prerequisite is mentioned (e.g. that a session/login must exist first).

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