abdm_download

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

The annotations only provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description carries meaningful weight. It discloses mode-dependent side effects: interactive mode triggers a desktop confirmation GUI, while headless mode performs a silent background download into an allowed sandboxed folder. It also mentions multi-threaded acceleration, adding context beyond the raw schema and annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the mode-specific behavioral details are presented in a clear, parallel structure that an agent can parse quickly.

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 10 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the core workflow (URL plus mode) but leaves several optional parameters unexplained. Since an output schema exists, return values are handled, but an agent would still lack guidance on queue/category/start_queue semantics and on when to choose this over the HLS or batch variants.

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 0% description coverage across 10 parameters, and the description only explains the 'mode' parameter by describing interactive and headless behavior. Most parameters, such as queue_id, category_id, start_queue, download_page, and speed_limit_bytes, receive no semantic guidance beyond their names, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 a specific action ('Submit an HTTP/HTTPS download task') and a specific resource ('AB Download Manager'), and the 'HTTP/HTTPS' qualifier distinguishes it from the HLS and batch sibling tools. It also clearly conveys the core behavior of creating a download task rather than querying or managing existing downloads.

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 clear context for choosing between 'interactive' and 'headless' modes, which is valuable. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over abdm_download_hls or abdm_download_batch; the distinction is only implied by the 'HTTP/HTTPS' wording and sibling names.

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