download_media

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 explaining behavior. It only states that media is downloaded, but does not disclose output format, file handling, permissions, side effects, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no structural safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource, and it is appropriately compact for a simple 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?

The tool is low in complexity, and the core operation is clear, but the description is incomplete for agent decision-making: it lacks return-value information, usage context, and any distinction from the closely related download_chat_media sibling. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 elaborate on chat_id or message_id. The names and the phrase 'from a message' imply their roles, but the description adds no concrete details about formats, constraints, or relationships between the parameters beyond the schema's basic type declarations.

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 action ('Download') with a clear resource ('a photo, video, or document from a message'). It conveys the media types and ties the operation to a specific message, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like download_chat_media, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as download_chat_media, get_message, or send_file. No conditions, exclusions, or recommended alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name and brief description.

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