download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (downloads all attachments, stores in local bridge inbox, returns absolute paths) but lacks details on edge cases, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 description includes the return value (absolute paths) and the destination (local bridge inbox). For a simple 2-parameter tool, it covers the main functional aspects, though it lacks parameter descriptions and potential edge-case behavior. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters at all. The parameter names (chat_id, message_id) are somewhat self-explanatory from context, but the description fails to provide explicit semantics or formats, leaving a significant gap.

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 clearly states the action (download), the resource (all attachments from a Discord message), and the outcome (return absolute paths). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message or reply.

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 implies usage when attachments from a message need to be retrieved, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear from the purpose, but no explicit alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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