wrike_download_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get download URL' and does not mention whether the URL is temporary, requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a download-related tool, this is a significant gap as the agent cannot anticipate return values or side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but not complete. It lacks info about the response format, the nature of the download URL (e.g., temporary vs permanent, authenticated), and does not clarify how it differs from the sibling 'wrike_get_attachment_url'. It is adequate for a basic tool but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the single parameter 'attachmentId' described as 'Attachment ID (required)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no additional value is added.

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 'Get download URL for an attachment' clearly states the action (get) and resource (download URL for an attachment). It is specific enough, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'wrike_get_attachment_url', which could be a source of confusion. The inclusion of 'download' provides some distinction, but not enough to be fully clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wrike_get_attachment_url' or 'wrike_get_attachment_preview'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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