Get Yandex.Disk content inline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: recursion into subfolders, inline base64 image return, the note+preview-URL fallback for non-images, and a hard 'max 12 images per call' limit. Those operational constraints are exactly the kind of detail agents cannot infer from structured fields.

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 action and resource, then return behavior, then the trigger condition, then the one hard limit, then a docs link. Every clause adds information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description steps in to describe return values (inline images, fallback note + URL) and the per-call image cap. What is missing is any treatment of the `path` parameter and error behavior for invalid/private links, so it falls just short of fully self-contained.

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 the two parameters. It never explains the required public_url format beyond the implied host names, and the `path` parameter is completely unaddressed (subfolder recursion is mentioned, but not how to target one via path). Minimal compensation for a real coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Open') plus resource ('public Yandex.Disk link, folder or file') and an explicit statement of what comes back (images inline as base64, non-images as note + URL). This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_media_content, which handle Telegram-hosted media rather than public Yandex.Disk links.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: a chat message containing a disk.yandex / yadi.sk link that the user wants to inspect. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., for Telegram-native attachments the agent should pick a sibling).

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