telegram_download_file

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

It explicitly states a non-destructive behavior (never overwrites an existing file), which is valuable. It does not mention other side effects like authentication requirements or rate limits, but the key safety aspect is covered.

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: the first states the core action, the second lists the key parameter constraint. It is concise, well-structured, and free of unnecessary details.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and main parameters. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., no media attached, error behavior), but given the sibling tools and the clarity of the purpose, it is reasonably complete.

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 no descriptions for parameters, but the description explains the constraints for 'destination' (new file name, specific directory). 'chat_id' and 'message_id' are implicitly clear from the tool's purpose, so the description adds reasonable meaning beyond parameter names.

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 media attached to a specific message, distinguishing it from sending files or retrieving messages. It is specific about the action and the target resource.

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?

It provides practical constraints: destination must be a new file name, saved in a configured directory, and never overwrites. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this tool over other search or retrieval tools, though the purpose is clear enough.

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