remedia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: idempotency ('skips existing files'), retry semantics for failed downloads, and the async continuation contract after `wait` seconds, including re-invocation to collect the final result. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or failure-mode detail.

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-loads the core purpose, then the async contract, then Args/Returns. The Args section duplicates schema fields, but that duplication is warranted given the 0% schema description coverage. No wasted filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return dict keys ('channel_id', 'messages_with_media', 'media_entries') and explains the running-status case. Complete for correct invocation, though permissions and progress/pagination behavior for very large channels are unaddressed.

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 define all three parameters, and it does: channel accepts an ID or full URL, limit takes the N most recent messages (None = all), and wait is the synchronous seconds before a running summary is returned. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema types.

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 and resource ('Re-download media (attachments + embed images)') scoped to 'ALREADY archived messages', which implicitly distinguishes it from a first-time capture. The contrast with capture() is reinforced by the background-execution 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?

Clear usage context: run it over already-archived messages, and it doubles as a retry path for entries whose prior download failed. It does not explicitly frame when NOT to use it (e.g. 'use capture() for new messages'), so the alternative selection is left partly to inference.

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