engine_files_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the write side effect of downloading into <store>/files, the manifest fields returned, and the meaning of the ok/missing/skipped states including the size-limit skip behavior. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but the main side effects and response semantics are visible.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first front-loads the operation and destination, and the second compacts usage and response details efficiently. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, selection mode, and response manifest. But it omits the required 'entity' field and does not describe the array-of-objects request shape, leaving a critical gap for correct 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?

The description explains id ('one row') and elem_id ('every file of an element'), which is useful because schema coverage is 0%. However, the required 'entity' property is never explained, and the relationship between entity, id, and elem_id within the array items is left unclear, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid request.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download element files into <store>/files, the same layout the program keeps.' This clearly identifies the operation and destination and distinguishes it from engine_files_add/remove. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling load tools like engine_static_load or engine_whole_load, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance inside the tool: 'Give id for one row or elem_id for every file of an element' and tells the caller to retry by id when a pack is skipped. It does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling load tools, and there are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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