Downloads

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, network-touching tool. The description adds a real behavioral clue by exposing a separate 'wait' action, implying downloads are asynchronous and may need polling. It still omits where files land, whether 'download' returns an id required by 'wait'/'cancel', and whether the call blocks.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the resource first and then the action vocabulary, with no filler. It is dense and readable, though the inline action glossary is slightly run-on.

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 6-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description leaves important workflow facts unstated: the download destination folder, what 'download' returns, and how ids for 'wait'/'cancel' are obtained. Adequate for identifying the tool, thin for calling it correctly in sequence.

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 100% and every parameter is already tagged with its owning action (id for wait/cancel, url for download, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's action list only loosely mirrors that mapping and adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Manages browser downloads') and enumerates all four action modes, so an agent can tell what the tool covers without opening the schema. It doesn't differentiate itself from nearby siblings like upload_file or pdf_save, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Mapping each action to its meaning ('wait' waits for a download to finish, 'cancel' cancels one) implies when each mode applies, which is useful. But there is no explicit guidance on sequencing (e.g. that 'download' is async and 'wait' is needed afterward) and no mention of when to prefer this over siblings such as pdf_save.

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