Download Message Hosted Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which reduces the burden on the description. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('base64 encoded data along with metadata') and clarifying the content type ('images or other inline content'), which complements the annotations. It does not mention the optional savePath side effect, but the schema covers that.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return behavior, and the second provides a direct usage pointer. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, the required parameters are clear from the schema. The description explains what the tool does and returns, which is sufficient given the schema covers parameter meanings. It could mention the optional savePath behavior or the difference from the chat variant, but those are accessible or inferable, so the description is largely complete.

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 all parameters have descriptions and the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond saying the content is 'inline content,' which is a general clarification rather than a detailed parameter explanation. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action ('Download hosted content') and resource ('from a Teams channel message'), and clarifies the return format ('base64 encoded data along with metadata'). It also explicitly notes the content type ('such as images'), making it distinct from the sibling tool download_chat_hosted_content, which targets chat messages.

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?

The description gives clear context with 'Use this to retrieve images or other inline content embedded in messages,' which tells an agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative for chat messages (download_chat_hosted_content) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.

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