telegram_media_fetch

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation; the description adds real context beyond them: the server chooses the path, the returned handle is an opaque artifact_id, size/timeout/quota limits apply, and the absence of a destination parameter is a deliberate security decision. It does not cover auth needs or retrieval of the artifact, but the safety-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, when to use it, what not to use it for, and why there is no destination parameter. Front-loaded with the action and the rationale for the odd calling convention.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does name the artifact_id handle and the limits. It stops short of explaining how the artifact_id is used or consumed downstream, a minor gap for a fetch-and-store tool.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including the link-supplies-message_id behavior. The description only adds the negative fact that no destination parameter exists, which is useful but does not enrich chat/account/message_id semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action (writes the attachment of one message to a server-chosen path under a generated name) and its return value (an opaque artifact_id). It distinguishes itself from telegram_media_transcribe and telegram_chat_read by name, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use clause ('when the user wants the file attached to one message saved on this machine') plus a when-not clause naming two alternatives for the transcriber and metadata-only cases. Nothing is left to inference.

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