neurover_download_media

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, and the description is consistent with that by framing it as a file download. However, it does not say that files are written to a local directory, whether existing files at outputDir are overwritten, or what happens on a missing/invalid asset — meaningful context for a disk-writing tool that annotations do not cover.

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 short sentences, purpose first and the sibling routing second — nothing redundant and nothing buried. The sizing matches the tool's modest scope.

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?

There is no output schema and the description neither describes what is returned (path? bytes? status?) nor how the required outputDir argument is interpreted. With four undocumented parameters and a filesystem side effect, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer before a correct call.

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% across four parameters, and the description only hints at mediaAssetId ('по mediaAssetId'), leaving outputDir (required), fileName, and account entirely unexplained in both schema and description. For a tool where the caller must supply a local destination path, that is a real gap rather than a minor one.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Скачать файл из медиатеки') and keys it to a named identifier (mediaAssetId), so the agent knows exactly which object class this acts on. It also contrasts itself with the generation-oriented sibling, making the boundary between the two unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use this for media-library assets, and prefer download_generation for generation results. It stops short of saying where mediaAssetId comes from (e.g. neurover_media / neurover_ensure_media), which is the main usability gap, but there are no misleading cues.

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