download_article_images

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the local write destination, exclusive directory behavior, default first-12-image limit, and the return of per-image results, SHA256 hashes, and missing ranges. It does not mention overwrite or file-conflict behavior, but the disclosed side effects are useful and consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 sentence, and every clause adds value: action, target, destination, return contents, and default count. It is front-loaded with the core action and destination.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contract and destination well. However, it omits parameter semantics, error/overwrite behavior, and criteria for what counts as an archived article, leaving notable gaps for an agent to resolve elsewhere.

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 parameter meaning, but it never explains that article_id identifies an archived article or that image_indices selects specific images by 1-based index. The 'default first 12' clause hints at behavior when image_indices is omitted, but this does not compensate for the overall lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb (下载/download), names the target resource (已存档公众号文章配图/archived article images), and specifies the local destination (本机output/articles独占目录). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_article_image or get_saved_article without needing schema inspection.

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 phrase 已存档 (archived) implies the tool is for previously saved or imported articles, but no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions are named. An agent can infer moderate usage context, yet explicit routing guidance is missing.

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