list_downloads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output fields and a key behavioral trait (poll-friendly), which strongly implies a read-only, lightweight operation. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple list tool these are less critical.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a valuable usage hint. No wasted words.

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 zero-param tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: it names the main return fields and gives a clear use case. The tool is simple, and the description covers all essential aspects.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly doesn't discuss any. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no further elaboration needed.

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 'List download-queue packages' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_linkgrabber' by focusing on the download queue and enumerating exact fields (progress_pct, speed, ETA, status, saveTo).

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 phrase 'The workhorse for polling' gives clear usage context, implying frequent/repeated calls for progress monitoring. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like 'status' or 'wait_for', though the name and field list imply its niche.

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