lanhu_download_asset

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by stating that the tool writes to a local file, converts bitmap assets to WebP by default, returns a saved path, and depends on a prior lanhu_get_assets call. It does not mention overwrite behavior or cookie/authentication requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 definition is two short sentences with no filler: the first packs action, conversion, and return value; the second gives the prerequisite. Both sentences earn their place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple download tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return value and the mandatory upstream call, and the schema covers parameter semantics. Minor gaps remain around whether the save directory is auto-created and whether authenticated cookies are required, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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%, so every parameter already has semantic documentation; the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that download_url comes from lanhu_get_assets and restates the WebP default, adding no schema-independent parameter detail such as directory-creation or naming behavior.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('download specified cutout/icon to local file') and names the outcome (returns the saved path). It also notes the WebP conversion, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like lanhu_get_assets.

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 explicitly says to call lanhu_get_assets first to obtain download_url and other required asset information, which gives clear invocation sequencing. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative download paths, so it stops short of a 5.

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