storage_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by explaining the side effect (file saved locally, path returned, images displayed) and the transport-dependent behavior (gRPC in-band vs REST/socket fetch from provider storage) – non-obvious operational detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then format guidance, then behavior and transport notes. Every sentence carries information, though the transport aside and HTTP route line are somewhat incidental.

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 correctly states what is returned (local file path, images shown) and the request side effect. It is largely self-sufficient for a single-parameter tool, missing only explicit alternative routing.

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 100% and the schema already supplies an example path, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the accepted input forms (bare path after /storage/ or a full /storage/... URL), which is modest incremental value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (download) and resource (stored object such as media/avatar) and clarifies it writes to a local file rather than returning data. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from the many sibling list/get tools.

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 useful sourcing context ('as found in a message attachment') and the accepted path form, which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly routes against close alternatives like messages_get_media or chats_get_avatar, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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