Download media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses streaming to disk, return format (file paths, sizes, attribution lines), and non-quota usage. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error handling, but the key behavioral traits are 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?

Three sentences: one for purpose and defaults, one for behavior and return, one for quota note. No fluff, front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, behavior, and param details reasonably well. It lacks explicit output structure but mentions return fields. Could mention maxItems limit from schema.

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 50%; the description adds context for photo_size (explaining resolution mapping) and directory (mentioning env var override). Items parameter is described as 'photos/videos by #id', which aligns with schema. It does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters but adds some value.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'download' and resource 'photos/videos by #id', distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or retrieve metadata. It specifies the action, target (local directory), and default location.

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 notes that downloads don't consume API quota, providing a usage incentive. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_media (which likely returns URLs) or search tools. The context is implied but not fully explicit.

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