process_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains format conversion, filename patterns, and directory handling, but does not detail side effects like file overwrite or error handling. Still, it gives adequate behavioral insight.

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 concise (about 10 lines) with a clear top-level purpose, a usage instruction, and a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers usage and parameters well, but lacks information about return values or error behavior. For a tool with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is fairly complete given the complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in detail: session_id, source_format (with 'auto' and known formats), target_format, target_filename (with token examples), target_directory (UNC paths supported), and guid. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Process a downloaded file: convert format, rename, and move to destination.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., browse, close_session).

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 explicitly says 'Call this after a download completes,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for appropriate use.

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