download_confluence_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the return value is a base64-encoded string rather than raw binary data, which is important. It does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or size limits, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with the action and output format stated upfront. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 straightforward two-parameter download tool, the description covers what it does, why it is useful, and what it returns. It does not explain how to obtain the attachmentId, but the schema and sibling list tools cover that, so this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents attachmentId and version thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Downloads'), a specific resource ('specific Confluence attachment'), and the output format ('base64-encoded string'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments_on_page or upload_confluence_attachment, which handle listing metadata and uploading, respectively.

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 phrase 'This is useful for reading the content of files attached to a page' gives a clear intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the fullest guidance.

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