ibot_download_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no session or login is needed, that the panel's S3 requires only a Referer header (with an observed/measured date), and that failures trigger alternative bucket-folder attempts. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or overwrite behavior of existing files, so it is not 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the input source, then auth behavior, then fallback. Each sentence carries information, though the dated measurement note is slightly incidental.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by stating the return values (path and size of each saved file). Combined with the auth and retry disclosures and a fully documented two-parameter schema, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (urls, dest_dir) are already documented inline, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that URLs must come from ibot_read_messages' arquivo.url field but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (download) and resource (media: audio/image/video/document from I-Bot messages) plus the destination (local disk). It explicitly names ibot_read_messages as the source of the URLs, so an agent can separate it from the other ibot_* readers without opening any schema.

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?

Tells the agent exactly what input to feed it – the URLs from the `arquivo.url` field of ibot_read_messages – and explains the fallback behavior when a URL fails (tries received/sent/attached/unattached bucket folders). It does not state when NOT to use it or name a competing tool, 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.