Download Attachment

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real behavior the annotations cannot: the return is a base64 embedded resource requiring no server filesystem, and files over 50 MB fail with a descriptive error rather than downloading inline. It does not say whether content type or attachment metadata accompanies the payload.

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 sentences, evenly front-loaded: the mechanism first, then the two operational constraints. Every clause carries distinct information (encoding, no filesystem, size ceiling, error behavior) with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics and the size failure mode. A brief note on what accompanies the payload (content type, filename) would close the remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents attachment_id format and even the discovery workflow. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download an attachment from Confluence') plus the delivery mechanism ('as an embedded resource'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the bulk sibling confluence_download_content_attachments. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly.

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?

Single-attachment scope against a singular attachment_id implies the when-to-use case, and the schema description supplies the upstream workflow (get_attachments → use returned ID). There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over confluence_download_content_attachments or jira_download_attachments.

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