download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key output behavior (base64 by default, file save with output_file) but omits other aspects like error handling, file not found behavior, or size limits.

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: a one-line purpose statement followed by a tight Args section. No wasted words, and the most critical information (purpose and options) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and the two output modes. It doesn't detail error cases or security, but those are less critical for a simple download utility.

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 explain parameters. It does so effectively: page_id, filename, and output_file are all described clearly, including the effect of leaving output_file null.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download an attachment from a page by filename.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_attachments and upload_attachment by focusing on retrieval of a single known 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does imply the need to know the filename, but it doesn't mention list_attachments for discovery or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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