szlcsc_download_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a write operation (downloading files to a local directory) but does not explicitly state whether it creates or modifies files, what permissions are required, or whether network access is needed. The output schema exists, but the description does not reference it. A score of 3 reflects minimal behavioral clarity with notable omissions.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and outputs. It is short, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. Every part serves a purpose, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the tool has 3 parameters (1 required, schema coverage 0%) and no annotations, increasing complexity. The description is too minimal to be complete; it lacks parameter explanations, usage prerequisites, and behavioral notes (e.g., whether files are overwritten). A score of 3 reflects adequacy for a simple tool but with clear gaps.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for any of the 3 parameters. The tool description does not explain any parameter semantics. 'identifier' is mentioned in the title but not defined; 'force' and 'output_root' are completely undocumented. This forces the agent to guess their meanings, which is poor usability.

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 downloads and organizes files for a single part (part.json, README.md, datasheet.pdf, product images). The verb '下载并整理' (download and organize) and the resource '器件' (part) are specific. However, the description lacks differentiation from sibling tools like szlcsc_get_part, which also retrieves a single part; the distinction in output files is implicit.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not mention scenarios where downloading files is necessary compared to simply fetching part data with szlcsc_get_part. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are indicated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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