下载文件

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

Annotation contradiction: the description states '传 savePath 可以直接写到服务器本地路径' (passing savePath writes directly to a server local path), which implies a write side effect, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the annotation's indication that the tool does not modify state.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the next two add essential behavior details without unnecessary filler.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior; it does cover text/base64/link outcomes. However, it lacks explicit error cases, prerequisites, and alternative-tool guidance, and the readOnly/savePath contradiction reduces overall reliability.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the default auto-encoding behavior (text returns body, binary returns base64), the savePath side effect, and the 'file too large returns link' fallback, which clarifies how parameters like encoding and maxInlineBytes behave.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '根据标识码取回文件内容' (retrieve file content by identifier code). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguished from siblings like upload_file, get_file_info, and delete_file.

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 context for use is implied: you use this when you have a file code and need its content. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_file_info for metadata) and no when-not-to-use exclusions.

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