sylve_download

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds that the tool can queue URL downloads and delete ISOs/images, but it does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentence that covers the main operations without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool summary, though brevity here contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.

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?

This is a complex 12-parameter tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema. The one-sentence description is not sufficient to guide action selection, parameter usage, or expected behavior for add/delete operations, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 only 33%, yet the description does not explain the 12 parameters or map actions to required fields such as ids, url, storage_pool, extract, filename, download_type, raw_convert, or ignore_tls. It mentions URLs and images in passing but provides no substantive parameter guidance to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names specific operations (list, show, queue/add, delete) on a concrete resource (URL downloads, ISOs/images) and identifies the downloader as the target. It is clear enough for an agent to distinguish this from VM, jail, ZFS, and network siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those tools.

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 enumerates the available actions, implying when each might be used, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints such as when deletion is appropriate. The action mapping is helpful but incomplete.

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