Download All Response Attachments

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

Beyond the annotations, the description richly discloses behavioral details: asynchronous zip manifest creation, 302 redirect to streaming URL, 422 error when fewer than 2 attachments, exclusion of PDM attachments, read-only nature, and common error statuses (401/403/404). This gives an agent deep insight into runtime behavior and edge cases.

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 and detailed but includes an irrelevant 'Use this when...' sentence and a redundant 'Required parameters' list. While the main action is front-loaded, the extra clutter and inconsistencies reduce overall conciseness and structural clarity.

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 covers return values, error behavior, required parameters, prerequisities (resolving IDs), exclusions (PDM), and the endpoint. It is thorough for a tool with this complexity, but the project_id default vs. required contradiction and the misplaced usage sentence leave some gaps in clarity.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters. The description adds context about project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and needing to resolve IDs via list tools, but this is partly contradictory because project_id is listed as required in both the schema and the description's own 'Required parameters' line. The added value is marginal and muddled.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool downloads all prostore-file attachments as a single zip, distinguishing it from single-attachment or generic-tool-item download tools. However, the later sentence 'Use this when you already know which response attachment you want and need its full field set' suggests a single-attachment use case, which conflicts with the bulk download purpose and prevents a perfect score.

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 provides a misleading usage trigger ('when you already know which response attachment...') that does not align with the bulk download function. It does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling download tools or state when to prefer it over alternatives. While it explains prerequisite resolution of IDs, this does not compensate for the lack of clear when-to-use guidance.

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