tg_download_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that it returns a local path, which is a key behavior, and provides a dependency on other tools. However, it does not disclose edge cases like messages without media or potential errors, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 two sentences long, with no filler. It front-loads the action and result, then provides a useful dependency hint. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema available), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose, expected input source, and return type. The only gaps are edge cases (e.g., no media attached) and peer semantics, but the output schema likely fills in return structure details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to message_id (where it comes from) but provides no explanation for the 'peer' parameter, which is still ambiguous. For a two-parameter tool, half the parameters lack semantic context, making this below average.

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 verb 'Download' and the resource 'media attached to one message', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like tg_read_chat (reading messages) and tg_send_file (uploading). It also differentiates by noting the message_id source, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by stating that message_id comes from tg_read_chat or tg_search, implying this tool is used after those operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple download tool.

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