get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the primary action (saving to disk) and the default download directory, but omits important details such as whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing files), requires authentication, or involves network calls. It also does not mention error conditions or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently state the action, identification method, and default directory. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality, with no wasted words.

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 tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description covers only a few aspects (identification and default download dir) but leaves other parameters unexplained, does not describe the return format beyond 'path', and lacks error handling or prerequisite details. This is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It explains that index or filename can identify the attachment, and that download_dir defaults to the project's downloads folder. However, it does not explain the uid, folder, or account parameters, which are likely needed to specify the message. This incomplete coverage fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool saves one attachment to disk and returns the path, with identification via index or filename from get_message. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle message operations rather than attachment saving.

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 clear context on how to identify the attachment (via index or filename from get_message), implying a prerequisite that get_message must be called first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

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