Save Attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two critical behaviors: binary content is never returned (only paths) and file names are sanitized because they come from hostile email data. This goes beyond the raw schema and helps the agent handle output safely. It could add details about overwriting behavior or directory creation, but the key safety traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, return behavior, and security warning. The main verb comes first, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned (paths, not binary), how to proceed (use a reader), and the security caveat (sanitized names). Minor gaps (overwrite behavior, directory creation) are not critical given the output schema and clear examples of intended use.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning; it only describes overall behavior (files are written, names sanitized). This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not elevate it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Telecharge les pieces jointes d'un message et les ecrit sur disque' (downloads attachments and writes to disk). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_email (which reads email body) or send_email (which sends), and the purpose is immediately obvious.

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 explains a clear workflow: after saving attachments, use a file-reading tool to open PDFs or images. This tells the agent when to call this tool and what to do next. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but no other sibling handles attachment saving, so the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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