download_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does clearly disclose that this is a side-effect operation and that confirm=true is required, which is valuable guardrail context. However, it omits other behavioral details such as what happens when confirm is false, what side effects occur (e.g., file writes, network fetches), or any irreversibility/permission considerations.

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 very short and front-loads the most important warning ('Side-effect tool'). Every word earns its place; there is no filler. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which prevents a higher score.

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 side-effecting download tool with four undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is not complete. The output schema helps with return values, but the agent still lacks enough context about force, episode selection semantics, defaults, and the practical consequences of invoking this tool.

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 compensate for all four parameters. It only explains confirm (must be true to download) and leaves force, podcast_id, and episode_ref semantically unexplained, despite their non-obvious defaults like 'gooaye' and 'latest'.

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 a specific action ('download podcast audio') and the gating condition (confirm=true), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling read-only or workflow tools, but the side-effect framing helps separate it from the many analytical siblings.

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 use cases by labeling the tool a side-effect tool and requiring confirmation, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus transcribe_episode, list_episodes, or the workflow tools. There is no 'when-not-to-use' or alternative routing.

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