control_downloads

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explain what each action does (e.g., does 'stop' cancel downloads or just pause them?), whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a control tool.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose ('Global queue control') and then listing the action values. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter, the description still fails to convey important context like the effect of each action, any prerequisites, or what the tool returns. The absence of an output schema makes this more critical, but the description remains minimally adequate for a basic control action.

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 schema provides no description or enum for the 'action' parameter, but the description lists the allowed values: start, stop, pause, resume. This adds critical semantic information beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the meaning of each value.

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's purpose as 'Global queue control' and lists the supported actions (start, stop, pause, resume). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like force_start or set_enabled, which likely operate on individual items rather than the entire queue.

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 action list implies usage (e.g., use 'pause' to pause the queue), but the description does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like force_start, nor does it exclude cases where another tool would be more appropriate. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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