extract_message_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful constraint ('explicit MEDIA and FILE_TEXT opt-in required') and specifies file types, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, or how the opt-in is actually performed. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity despite some added value.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the core action and then adding the key opt-in constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the basic action and file types, but it lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and details about the opt-in mechanism. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the tool remains under-documented given its sibling family and specific requirements, leaving the agent with too many unanswered questions about how and when to invoke 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The parameter names (chat, local_id, server_id_str, max_chars_per_file) provide some clues, but the distinction between local_id and server_id_str is unclear, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's basic types and defaults.

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 the action ('Extract text') and the resource ('local txt/PDF/Office files'), with a specific scope that distinguishes it from siblings like message_media, ocr_message_images, and transcribe_message_voice. This is a specific verb+resource combination with file-type context.

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 usage through file types and the opt-in requirement, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ocr_message_images or transcribe_message_voice. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so the agent must infer suitability from the brief mention of 'txt/PDF/Office files'.

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