download_hosted_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses three distinct return shapes, the save_path side effect (writes to disk and suppresses content payload), include_raw behavior, and the fact that content_type is sniffed and may be None. This is far beyond what an agent could infer from the schema.

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 organized into clear, scannable sections: one-line summary, location constraint, ID sourcing, Args, and Returns. Every sentence carries useful operational information, and the most important disambiguation is front-loaded. No filler 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?

This is a relatively complex tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers all parameters, all return variants, edge cases (image blocks, file saving, unknown content types), and the exact source of required IDs. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, but the Args section adds rich meaning to every parameter: the exclusivity constraint on chat_id/team_id/channel_id, the source of hosted_content_id, the effect of save_path (file path vs directory, return shape), and include_raw's conditional behavior. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Download'), a precise resource ('one inline hosted-content item'), and differentiates it from sibling attachment tools by clarifying it handles hosted-content items typically referenced in message hosted_content_refs. The first sentence alone is sufficient to disambiguate it from download_attachment.

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 explicit usage context: how to locate the message, the mutually exclusive location options (chat_id vs team_id + channel_id), and where to source message_id and hosted_content_id. It does not explicitly name when to prefer sibling download_attachment over this tool, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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