redmine_download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: validation of downloaded byte count, surfacing short reads as 'attachment_size_mismatch', path restrictions with symlink resolution, and read-only safety. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but overall it's transparent.

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 well-structured with an Args section and paragraphs. It is informative but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value. A more concise version could omit the docstring formatting, but it remains clear and organized.

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's complexity (3 parameters, output schema present but not described), the description covers primary behaviors: parameter details, validation, and safety. It lacks explicit description of return values or output format, but the mention of error surfacing partially compensates.

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 description thoroughly explains each parameter: attachment_id (numeric, visible in issue payloads), save_to (path with parent directory must exist and be under allowed directories), overwrite (default false, refuses overwrite). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool downloads an attachment by ID to a path-restricted location. It specifies the action (download), resource (attachment by id), and target (path-restricted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_upload_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?

The description provides context like path restrictions and overwrite behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for different tasks.

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