evidence_download_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says content is downloaded to a local file; it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a file-writing operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is immediately scannable for an agent.

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 does not explain the relationship between id/kod, evidence, and attachment_id, leaving ambiguity about which identifier identifies the attachment versus the evidence record. It does not mention how the tool behaves when output_path already exists or what the output schema contains. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, this is not fully complete.

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 each parameter. The description adds little beyond connecting evidence/attachment_id to the attachment and output_path to the local destination, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 states a specific verb ('Download'), a specific resource ('an attachment's raw content'), and a destination ('a local file'). It is clear and reasonably distinct from siblings like evidence_get_attachment_thumbnail, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from evidence_get_attachment.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evidence_get_attachment or evidence_list_attachments. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this tool and its siblings.

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