download_media

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: download_dir path validation, inline returns Image/Audio with a 1 MB limit, and thumb_index downloads only previews. These go beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention side effects like file writing explicitly.

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 concise, with a brief summary and a well-structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers key behavioral aspects (inline, thumbnails, path validation) and the output schema handles return values. However, it's ambiguous whether 'media' means all media or a single media, and the required params (chat, message_id) are not described. This leaves moderate gaps for a tool with 5 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 must compensate. It documents three parameters (download_dir, thumb_index, inline) with meaningful semantics, but omits the two required parameters (chat, message_id), leaving a gap. The provided meanings are clear and useful, but not complete.

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 'Download media from a message' (Скачать медиа из сообщения), which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_profile_photo and get_media_info, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The parameter hints provide some usage context but not tool-selection guidance.

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