get_media

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

The description discloses a meaningful side effect (downloads to disk) and an extra behavior (audio transcription returns with the audio), which is valuable because no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or whether the operation is safe or mutating beyond downloading files, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into purpose, parameter hint, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, so this is a high-information need. The description covers the tool's purpose and one parameter, but leaves date filters, limits, instance selection, and transcription behavior mostly unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains the 'tipos' parameter values. It does not clarify 'chat', 'since', 'until', 'limite', 'instance', or 'transcrever_audios' beyond a hint about transcription, leaving most parameters poorly specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it downloads media from a conversation to disk and returns local paths. It also lists the supported media types and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_messages, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: use this tool when you need the actual files, and prefer get_messages for reading the entire conversation. This explicit routing to an alternative makes the usage boundary unambiguous.

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