chats_get_avatar

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the file is saved locally with its path returned, images are rendered, and the byte-delivery path differs between gRPC (in-band) and REST/socket (fetched from provider storage). It stops short of stating what happens when the chat has no avatar or what error/return shape to expect.

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?

It is compact, but the first sentence is awkwardly front-loaded ('described') while the actually decisive information (local file path returned, transport-dependent retrieval) comes later. The parenthetical endpoint/transport note is reference metadata rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description does partially discharge the return-value burden by explaining that a local path is returned and images are shown. But it omits the format of that path, what happens on failure or missing avatar, and any pagination/size concerns, leaving gaps for a retrieval tool with two required and undocumented parameters.

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 carries the full burden for chatId and channelId — yet it says nothing about either parameter, not even the chatId/channelId pairing requirement. Both are inferable only from parameter names and example UUIDs.

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 — retrieving a chat's avatar — and the endpoint line (POST /api/kalagh/chats/get-avatar · gRPC GetChatAvatar) pins it down, distinguishing it from contacts_get_avatar. However, the opening phrase 'A chat's avatar, described' is ambiguous phrasing that only becomes clear after reading the rest.

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 call this tool versus siblings like chats_get or contacts_get_avatar, nor any prerequisite (e.g. must the chat exist, does it need an avatar to be set). The agent gets transport mechanics but no selection criteria.

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