batch_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the combined operation and implies file download, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files, network requests), permission requirements, or whether the operation is blocking. The schema includes concurrency and maxFiles, which hint at limitations, but the description lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides concrete use cases. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 9 parameters and combines two operations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., tab must have a loaded page with DOM), return values (likely none), error handling, and behavior when no resources are found. However, the schema covers parameters thoroughly, and the use-case examples help. More context about expected outcomes would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool extracts resources from a DOM container and downloads them all, combining two operations. It provides specific use cases like downloading all images from a chat or PDFs from a table, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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 gives practical usage contexts (e.g., 'downloading all images from a chat') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternative tools like extract_resources for non-download scenarios. However, the reference to combining extract_resources + download provides implicit guidance.

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