download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that downloads are saved to a configured directory, that P2P connections are asynchronous, and that checking immediately will show 0%. It also reveals the response includes wait_before_poll_secs, which is beyond what any schema offers.

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 efficiently organized: a one-line purpose, a single sentence on file location, and a clear 'IMPORTANT' section with imperative guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure naturally front-loads the core action.

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?

Given the tool's asynchronous nature and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the key expectations: directory, timing, and the wait_before_poll_secs field. It does not mention error handling or what happens with invalid ids, but for a simple download initiation tool it provides sufficient context for an agent to act.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly define the 'id' parameter. It is inferable that the id identifies a file from a search result, but the description never states the source or format. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema detail, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download a file from a Soulseek peer.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search, download_status, and cancel_download.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool and crucially warns about waiting 30 seconds before polling download_status. It also instructs the agent to respect wait_before_poll_secs and avoid live-polling. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the timing guidance is explicit and actionable.

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