Скачать вложение сообщения

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact not obvious from structured data: the destination must be a new file (no overwrite). It says nothing about failure modes (e.g. invalid index) or where the file ends up beyond the given path.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the constraint. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity means some useful routing context was omitted rather than trimmed.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and one constraint, and annotations supply the safety profile. Still missing: how to pick 'index' among multiple attachments, whether the dialog/message resolution follows the same rules as dialogs_history, and any auth/permission expectation for openWorld use.

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 five parameters (case, index, dialog, message, destination) are already documented in the schema, including the no-overwrite rule. The description's destination sentence merely restates the schema's own wording, adding no meaning beyond it. 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Сохраняет вложение локально' – saves the attachment locally), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from any sibling (e.g. dialogs_reply_file also deals with file attachments), leaving the agent to infer the scope from required params.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The only operational hint is a constraint on the destination path ('должен быть новым файлом'), which is a usage rule but not a selection rule. Usage is only implied by the name.

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