download_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that a local file is written (absolute local path) and that no format extraction happens, which the annotations alone would not reveal for a 'read-only' tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope constraint first, return payload second, post-call behavior third. No filler and properly front-loaded.

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 core flow is understandable and the output schema plus the description cover the return shape, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, with four of six parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks guidance on url, detail, and the offset cursor parameters.

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 only 33% across six parameters. The description hints at card_id and attachment_id scope but says nothing about 'url', the 'detail' enum (summary/full), or the text_offsets/section_offsets cursor objects, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (download) and resource (an original attachment) and constrains scope to a selected original attached to the supplied card or its accessible comments. It implicitly separates itself from list_attachments ('only a selected original'), but never names the sibling tool.

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 gives downstream guidance ('Use your own file tools to read it; no format extraction occurs here'), which usefully sets expectations, but it never states when to reach for this instead of list_attachments or how to obtain the attachment_id first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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