ktalk_download_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: streaming downloads, file writes, directory creation, non-overwrite policy, and quality selection defaults. It does not detail all edge cases (e.g., error handling, permissions), but given the moderate complexity, this is a solid 4.

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 direct, with a one-sentence summary followed by bullet-like parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds unique value with no redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity, all necessary information is covered: main action, parameter specifics, defaults, and a format enum. No output schema is specified, but the description hints at metadata formats ('raw' vs 'markdown'), which suffices for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so for all fields: recording_key is self-explanatory, target_path gets file-write details, quality explains default selection, and format gives allowed values ('raw'/'markdown'). This more than compensates for the schema gap.

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 the verb 'Download' with a specific resource ('a KTalk recording video file to disk'), and it also specifies the streaming behavior with a requirement traceability tag ('FR-7'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like ktalk_get_recording, which likely retrieves metadata rather than a file.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions the parameter behavior (e.g., 'Parent directories are created; an existing file is not overwritten'), which provides implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this vs. alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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