media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: where files are stored under DMINE_MEDIA, that some entries are URL-only and may already be expired, and how to re-fetch them. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate/scope caveats, keeping it just shy 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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then storage/expiry context, then a clean Args/Returns block. The structured layout is efficient, though it is slightly verbose for a simple listing tool.

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?

Documents all arguments and describes the return dict shape (media_dir, count, attachments with per-entry fields), which compensates for the absent output schema. Only missing element is any note on permissions or error behavior, but the definition is otherwise complete for a read-only listing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: channel is a 'channel ID or full URL', limit is 'max messages to scan (default 200)', and message_since restricts to 'messages with id > this message ID'. All three params gain clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 (list) and two distinct resource types (attachments AND embed images) scoped to a channel. This distinguishes it from siblings like remedia, which it explicitly references for downloading, so an agent can route confidently.

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?

Clearly points to remedia() as the alternative for (re-)downloading while links are valid, and notes that entries without local_path only hold an expirable CDN URL. That gives strong contextual guidance, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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