Download course materials and files for a specified course ID into a custom local folder, with an option to fetch only new files and return a download result list.
【學生課程教材下載】下載指定課程的課堂教材與檔案，支援自訂本機存放資料夾（例如：eeclass_教材/行政法一 或自訂路徑）。外掛實體接收此指令後自動擷取檔案並歸檔至指定目錄，並有效回傳下載結果清單與外掛確認 ACK。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | 欲下載教材之課程 ID（例如 35657） | |
| onlyNewFiles | No | 是否僅下載尚未同步過的新檔案 | |
| targetDirectory | No | 本機教材存放資料夾路徑或子目錄名稱 | eeclass_教材 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect (fetches files and archives them to the specified local directory) and that it returns a result list plus an ACK. It omits overwrite behavior, failure modes, and any permission/session requirements, which matter for a disk-writing operation.
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?
Content is front-loaded with the bracketed tag then the action, but the second sentence is padded with implementation jargon ('外掛實體接收此指令後……外掛確認 ACK') that adds little for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does compensate partly by describing the returned file list and ACK. However, it leaves out session/auth prerequisites and the effect of onlyNewFiles defaults, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only a small amount — an example custom path — and says nothing about courseId semantics or the deduplication behavior governed by onlyNewFiles, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb plus resource ('下載指定課程的課堂教材與檔案'), scoped to a course. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like package_download_homework or list_homeworks, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.
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?
Implies usage by saying it supports a custom local folder and gives an example path, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as an active Chrome/eeclass session despite that being required by sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.