Download All Email Attachments

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return format (JSON object with generated file or download URL), listing common error statuses (401, 403, 404), and explicitly stating it is read-only and changes nothing. This aligns with readOnlyHint=true and provides practical error-handling context not present in the annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage guidance, default behavior, safety, error handling, required params, and API context. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured logically, though it could be slightly tighter without losing key details.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return payload, error modes, parameter prerequisites, and API endpoint. It explains how to resolve IDs and the read-only nature, making it fully actionable for an agent. No critical behavioral or error information is missing for this download operation.

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 100%, but the description enriches semantics by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that communication_id/email_id must resolve existing records via a list tool. However, the 'defaults when omitted' statement contradicts the schema's required flag, creating potential confusion about whether project_id is mandatory. This conflict prevents a higher score.

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 tool returns a URL to download all email attachments in .zip format, which is specific and distinguishes it from company-level or single-attachment download tools. The endpoint and parameters (project_id, communication_id, email_id) clarify the scope is project email communications. The phrase 'which email attachment you want' is slightly confusing but does not undermine the core purpose.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when you already know the email attachment and need its full field set, and instructs to resolve parent IDs with the matching list tool first. This provides clear context and prerequisites, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., company-level attachment download) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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