mineru_download_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates per-paper folders containing markdown, JSON, and images, and it includes a caution to verify the parsed title. However, it does not mention whether the output directory is created, how overwrite behaves beyond the schema default, or any network/permission requirements.

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 sentences are used efficiently: action, expected folder structure, and a verification note. No redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the output structure and a verification step, which is helpful. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions, whether the output directory must exist or is created, and what happens when overwrite=false and files already exist. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would make it complete.

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 schema already documents batch_id, output_dir, and overwrite. The description adds only general context (e.g., 'batch results') and does not elaborate on parameter formats, directory creation, or overwrite semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool downloads batch results and extracts named paper folders, and it details the expected folder contents. It is specific about verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as mineru_status or mineru_parse_long.

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 this tool is used to retrieve batch outputs after processing, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It also does not state prerequisites like waiting for batch completion or when to prefer mineru_status over this tool.

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