package_download_homework

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet leaves key traits unclear: it says it returns "ZIP 下載資訊" (download information), which ambiguously sits between 'produces a file' and 'returns a URL/token' — the tool name 'download' points one way, the description the other. It also omits whether packaging is synchronous or job-based, permission requirements, and what happens when no submissions exist.

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?

A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded, followed by scope and then the UI anchor. No filler, though splitting the return-shape clarification into a short second clause would have improved it without bloat.

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 one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The remaining gap is that with no output schema the agent cannot learn the shape of the returned download info (URL, expiry, file list), so a sentence on the return value would have completed it.

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 100% (homeworkId: 作業 ID), so the schema already fully documents the single parameter and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantics about homeworkId — e.g. whether it accepts an ID from list_homeworks or only from the teacher's own course.

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 operation: retrieve ZIP download info for all attachments and system text files of submitted homework (取得已繳交作業之所有附件與系統文字檔 ZIP 下載資訊). This is clearly distinct from get_homework_detail or list_homework_submissions in resource scope, but the description never names a sibling to contrast with, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical "對應已交名單頁工具列按鈕" anchors usage to a specific UI affordance (the toolbar button on the submitted-list page), which implies bulk download of an entire class's submitted work. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisite statement (e.g., must be the course instructor), and no mention of an alternative tool for downloading a single submission.

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