get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get attachment file path,' which implies a read operation, but does not clarify whether this downloads the attachment, returns a local/remote path, or has side effects. The return format and error behavior are entirely undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no unnecessary wording or redundant structure, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 getter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description offers a minimal but functional overview. However, it lacks critical context about what the file path represents (local temp file, server path, URL) and any dependencies between this tool and others, leaving some completeness 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 100% (both uid and filename have descriptions), meeting the baseline for no additional parameter explanation. The description adds no extra nuance beyond naming the operation; parameter meanings are already provided by the schema.

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 'Get attachment file path' uses a clear verb-action pair with a specific resource, immediately distinguishing this tool from siblings like read_email, get_folders, and send_email. It unambiguously states what the tool does without tautology.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, there is no guidance on whether the attachment must be fetched after read_email or how the file path is meant to be consumed.

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