Get media content inline

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, the description adds critical operational limits (max 6 images per call, originals over 5 MB skipped) and specifies exact return behavior for each media type. This goes well beyond the safety and idempotency hints provided by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and return format, then efficiently covers edge cases and limits in two dense sentences. No extraneous information; every clause earns its place, and the documentation link is appropriately placed at the end.

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 tool's complexity (media handling, size limits, multiple return formats), the description covers all necessary behavioral details: inline base64 return, fallback for non-images, voice/video routing, and per-call limits. No output schema is needed because the description fully explains what to expect in the response.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly (chat_id formats, message_ids mutual exclusivity with query/reply_to_id). The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch photos/images from specific messages'), specifies the return format ('INLINE as native image content (base64)'), and enumerates fallback behavior for non-image, voice, and round video. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_messages and get_yandex_disk_content.

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 explains the core use case ('so web clients can read screenshots without fetching a URL') and routes non-image requests appropriately, directing to get_messages field `transcription` for voice/round video. It does not explicitly name get_messages or get_yandex_disk_content as alternatives for other file types, but the context is clear.

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