get_directories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool retrieves directory/settings information, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe behavior when package_ids is null, return format, or error cases. Some useful context is added via 'extension enabled' and 'custom extract path'.

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 a single concise fragment that wastes no words and front-loads the key content. Every element ('per-package save paths', 'default download folder', 'extraction settings') carries meaningful information.

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 simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of the response categories. However, it lacks details about how results are structured, the effect of omitting package_ids, and whether the response is grouped per package. This leaves some gaps for an agent to handle correctly.

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 has one optional parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds partial meaning by tying 'per-package save paths' to package_ids, but it does not clarify how package_ids affects the default folder/extraction settings or what null means. This partially compensates for the missing schema 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 lists the specific information returned (per-package save paths, default download folder, extraction settings) and the tool name 'get_directories' reinforces the retrieval purpose. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling setters, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool being a getter: an agent would use it to inspect current save paths and extraction settings, as opposed to set_download_dir or set_extraction. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives.

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