wb_chat_download

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe the response format (binary data, URL, etc.), authentication requirements, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a download operation.

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 short and front-loaded, conveying the core action and parameter sourcing in one sentence. The parenthetical '(файл из чата)' is mildly redundant with 'from a buyer chat', but it does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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 single-parameter tool, the description provides the minimal viable guidance for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return value and behavioral outcome underspecified, which an agent would need to know to handle the response correctly.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that file_id comes from a chat event, which is essential provenance information for correctly obtaining and supplying the value.

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 names a specific verb ('Download'), a specific resource ('a file from a buyer chat'), and the origin of the key identifier ('file_id comes from a chat event'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wb_document_download or wb_documents_download_bulk.

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 implies when to use the tool: after obtaining a file_id from a chat event. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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