download_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description confirms downloading and returning content, which aligns with annotations. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of file size limits, or that media must exist).

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 sentence of 9 words, with no redundancy or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description could do more to explain return value format or handling of large media. The schema details parameters adequately, but the overall completeness is average for a tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the trade-off between include_full_data and save_to_disk). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (media from a WhatsApp message), and the outcome (return its content). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_media' (which sends) and 'get_message_by_id' (which retrieves message metadata).

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, no prerequisites (e.g., message must contain media), and no context about when not to use it. Siblings like 'send_media' or 'get_message_by_id' are not mentioned for differentiation.

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