get_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses output format ('base64-encoded data'), size constraints ('Maximum 20 MB'), and pagination behavior. Lacks explicit read-only/safety declaration but 'download' implies non-destructive access.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose, return format, prerequisite workflow, and operational limits. Information is front-loaded and logically ordered.

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?

Comprehensive given no annotations or output schema. Covers return value format, prerequisites, and pagination strategy. Would be a 5 with explicit mention of error handling or idempotency, but adequately complete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds valuable semantic context: linking partId to the list_attachments prerequisite and explaining that offset+length work together for paginated downloads of large files.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('attachment'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling 'list_attachments' by implying content retrieval vs. metadata listing.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow ('Use list_attachments first to get the partId') and provides clear pagination guidance for large files ('use offset+length for larger files'), covering both normal and edge-case usage.

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