get_attachment

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

With no useful annotation hints (all false), the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that the file is written to disk and that its content is not read into the conversation, which is important behavioral information. It could mention overwrite behavior or error handling, but for a simple tool it is quite transparent.

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 clear sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and outcome, the second clarifies the side effect. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with no output schema and weak annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: downloading to a directory and providing the file location. It lacks details about error conditions or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is only 33% (only part_id has inline description), yet the description does not explain the other two parameters (folder, uid). It adds no extra meaning about what these parameters represent or how they relate to the download process, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'download' and identifies the resource as 'one attachment' with a clear destination ('configured download directory'). It also states the outcome ('report where it landed'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_email or search_emails.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (when you need an attachment saved to disk) and even clarifies that the bytes are not read into the conversation, which implies it is not for content inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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