feishu_im_user_fetch_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses critical behavioral traits: requires user OAuth authorization, saves files automatically to /tmp/openclaw/, returns saved_path, has a 100MB file size limit, and lists unsupported resource types (emojis, merged-forward messages, card resources). This covers most key operational aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage scenarios, notes, parameter explanation, file handling, limitations). It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple behavioral constraints, though some redundancy with schema descriptions slightly reduces efficiency.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, usage rules, authorization needs, file handling behavior, return value hint (saved_path), and limitations. It effectively compensates for the lack of structured metadata, though minor details like error handling could be more explicit.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that file_key comes from message bodies and distinguishes image_key vs. file_key, but this is largely redundant with schema descriptions. No significant semantic enhancements are provided.

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 with specific verbs ('download') and resources ('file or image resources from Feishu IM messages to local file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like feishu_im_bot_image. It explicitly mentions the user OAuth requirement, which adds specificity beyond just the action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you have message_id and file_key from user-identity APIs') and when not to use it ('if message_id is from current conversation context, use feishu_im_bot_image instead'). It names the alternative tool and specifies the authorization difference, making it highly actionable.

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