get_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns a local path AND attaches the file itself for images or reasonable-size audio, and explicitly declines to transcribe or describe. Auth requirements and rate limits remain unstated, keeping it short of 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the return behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by explaining the return shape (local path plus attached file). However, for a tool with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent without enough information on inputs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all: chat, message_id and account are never explained, nor are their expected formats. The phrase 'd'un message' only loosely hints at message_id. For a 3-param tool with zero schema documentation, this is a clear gap.

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 (télécharge) and resource (le média d'un message) and enumerates the media types covered (vocal, image, vidéo, document, sticker). It is trivially distinguishable from the inverse sibling send_media, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

The description implies its use case (fetch media from an existing message) but names no alternative and states no explicit when/when-not conditions. The clause 'Aucune transcription ni description : c'est au modèle de les faire' is useful negative scoping that tells the agent this tool will not do the downstream work, but it is not a routing guideline.

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