getAttachment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It omits the important behavior that saveToFile defaults to true, meaning the call writes a file to disk by default, plus any auth requirements, size limits, or unsupported attachment types despite the vague 'supports various attachment types' claim.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and lookup keys, with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'content preview capabilities' is a soft claim that adds little.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not say what is returned, how previews work, what saveToFile does, or what happens on failure, which an agent needs before calling a tool that writes files by default.

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 explains only the two required parameters it already names, adding no format or constraint detail. It says nothing about 'folder' (default INBOX) or the side-effecting 'saveToFile' default, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Download and view') plus resource ('email attachments') and even the lookup keys (email UID and attachment index). It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the obvious sibling getEmailDetail.

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 on when to use this versus getEmailDetail (which likely also exposes attachments) or versus downloading a whole message. The only usage cue is the implied 'you need the UID and index', which is not a when-to-use rule.

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