get_base64_from_media_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions download and base64 conversion but omits side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the message is marked as read. The 'instanceName' parameter hints at auth but is not explained.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and result. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover output format, error conditions, or when the tool might fail (e.g., message not found, media too large). A tool with this complexity needs more context.

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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema; it does not explain the structure of the 'message' object or the purpose of 'convertToMp4'. The missing description for 'convertToMp4' is not compensated.

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 (download) and the outcome (return as base64), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_media or find_messages. However, it could be more explicit about the source (WhatsApp media message) and the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or situations where other tools like find_messages or send_media would be more appropriate.

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