Get File Link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important operational trait: the link is temporary and should be downloaded immediately. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the retrieval nature is implied.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the temporary-link warning is a concise, actionable second sentence.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the key scenario, the source of idMessage, the output (a file link), and an important limitation. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit chat_id semantics, but the parameter name makes it inferable.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It clarifies id_message as an ID from history for a message with an attachment, but it does not explicitly explain chat_id beyond its self-explanatory name.

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 that the tool provides a link to a file from a message with an attachment, identified by idMessage from history. This distinguishes it from sending tools like send_file and send_file_by_url, though it lacks an explicit verb and direct sibling comparison.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need a file link from an existing historical message that contains an attachment, passing the idMessage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'from history' and 'with attachment' constraints make the intended usage evident.

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