Read Email Attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses supported file formats and automatic downscaling of large image previews, which are important behavioral traits. However, it omits details like auth requirements or rate limits.

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, no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key details (formats, size handling). Very efficient and 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?

No output schema is provided, so the agent must infer the return format. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., binary data, base64, parsed text) or how the IDs are used. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

The input schema has three parameters with no descriptions. The description does not explain what messageId, attachmentId, or mailbox represent or how to obtain them, leaving the agent without guidance despite the schema having 0% coverage.

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 action (download and parse) and resource (Outlook attachment). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_email_attachments and list_recent_messages by specifying it downloads and parses a single attachment's content.

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 implies usage for reading attachment content after listing attachments, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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