gmail_get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output format (base64 data), which is useful, but there is no mention of size limits, error behavior, or the read-only nature beyond the verb 'download'. This is adequate but not richly 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and output format.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is minimally complete, but it lacks contextual prerequisites (e.g., attachment_id comes from reading the message) and does not compensate for missing parameter descriptions. The output schema may cover return details, but the description alone 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters beyond their self-evident names. It does not clarify the relationship between message_id and attachment_id or where to obtain them. The names are clear, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a Gmail attachment') with a clear output format ('return its base64 data'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like gmail_read_message and gmail_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., obtaining message_id and attachment_id from a prior read call). The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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