Download All Generic Tool Item Attachments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: asynchronous zip manifest creation, 302 redirect, 422 when fewer than two attachments, PDM exclusion, and common 401/403/404 error statuses. This is detailed, non-contradictory behavioral context that an agent can act on.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and densely packed with useful behavior, edge cases, and errors. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Required parameters' restates the schema) and the mismatched 'Use this when' sentence adds noise, but the overall structure is logical and every major section earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by covering the async zip/redirect flow, return payload shape, and likely failure modes. It is sufficient for a moderately complex download tool, though it could be more specific about the ZIP contents beyond the PDM exclusion.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id and generic_tool_id must reference existing parent records, which is not in 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 first sentence clearly states the tool downloads all prostore-file attachments for a generic tool item as a single zip. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_generic_tool_items and download_all_response_attachments.

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 useful context: project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and id/generic_tool_id must identify existing parent records, ideally resolved with the matching list tool first. However, the 'Use this when you already know which generic tool item attachment you want' sentence is semantically mismatched with a bulk-download-all tool, and no alternatives are explicitly named.

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