Muse chat media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that download is opt-in and that the chat may be opened first, but it says nothing about authentication/login requirements (muse_login exists), permissions, or what happens when a chat cannot be opened. The side-effect disclosure is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional side effect second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 and no annotations, so the description should ideally sketch the return shape (e.g., a list of URLs vs. downloaded file paths) and the login/chat prerequisites. It covers the core intent but leaves these gaps for a tool in a larger chat-automation family.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three parameters (dir, chat, download) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates only the optional download behavior and adds no new semantics for dir or chat, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (extract image/video/attachment links from a chat) and clarifies what those links are (Muse share links for generated media). That is enough to distinguish it from muse_read_chat or muse_chats, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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?

"Optionally download them" implies the two modes (link extraction vs. download), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in or have a chat open), and no named alternative for reading chat text. Usage is only inferable.

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