list_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, returns only metadata and captions, and clarifies that there is no download tool. This gives an agent important safety and capability expectations, though it does not cover auth or rate-limit details.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and filtering mechanism are front-loaded, followed by key output and limitation information.

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 read-only parameterized tool with full schema coverage, this is complete. It clarifies the return content and the lack of a download capability, which are the main contextual facts an agent needs before calling it.

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%, and the schema already documents chat, kind, and limit well. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall intent, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing messages in a chat filtered by attachment kind. It is clear about the scope and result, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_messages or get_messages, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives useful context: this is for attachment-kind filtering and uses Telegram's server-side index. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but it conveys a clear use case.

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