Download Attachment

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the response is a base64-encoded embedded resource, no filesystem access is required, and files over 50 MB will not be downloaded inline and instead yield an error message. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential return-format and size-limit details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has a single parameter, a simple read-only operation, no output schema, and readOnlyHint=true. The description sufficiently covers the return format, the base64 encoding rationale, and the 50 MB failure behavior, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for attachment_id, including an example, how to find IDs via get_attachments, and an example workflow. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: "Download an attachment from Confluence as an embedded resource." It also distinguishes this tool from sibling list/upload/delete tools by emphasizing the base64-encoded embedded-resource format, making its purpose clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when attachment content needs to be available over MCP without server filesystem access. It also states a size limitation (files >50 MB are not downloaded inline), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer sibling tools like confluence_download_content_attachments.

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