Download GitLab attachment

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds detail about the output being 'bounded base64 data' and the restriction to 'same-instance' uploads, which are useful behavioral constraints not present in annotations.

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 two concise sentences without redundant wording. It conveys the core purpose and a key constraint efficiently.

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?

The description explains the output format (base64, bounded) and a validation rule, but lacks details about URL structure, how max_bytes interacts with fetching, or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, the description is only moderately complete.

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 coverage is 0% because the description does not mention the 'url' or 'max_bytes' parameters. Neither is explained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the meaning and purpose of these parameters ambiguous.

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 action (Download) and the target resource (same-instance GitLab issue or merge-request upload), and distinguishes it from other tools by specifying 'same-instance' and 'issue or merge-request upload' rather than generic file downloads.

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 implies when to use this tool (for downloading issue or MR uploads) and includes a constraint ('Only GitLab upload paths are accepted'), which helps select it over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other download tools like get_job_artifact_file.

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