download_module_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains scope but does not state what happens after download (saving, zipping, returning links), any permissions required, or how module files are selected. The description adds minimal behavior beyond the action itself.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No wasted words, though it is terse enough that some behavioral and parameter details are omitted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values and runtime behavior, but does not. The tool appears simple (one parameter), yet key context like expected input URL format and download outcome is missing, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the moduleUrl parameter beyond the schema's existing 'uri' type. It leaves unclear how to obtain the URL, what exact URL is expected, or how it relates to resource/assign module pages, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of 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?

Description states a clear verb ('Скачать' / download), a resource (files from a single specific module), and narrows scope to 'resource или assign' module types. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling download_course_files by emphasizing 'only from one specific module'.

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 'только из одного конкретного модуля' implies a condition: use this for module-level downloads rather than course-wide downloads. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving selection partially to inference.

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