download_attachments

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

The description states two key behaviors: the confirm gate and never-overwriting files. With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds the specific 'never overwrites' safety detail that annotations don't capture. However, it doesn't disclose error behaviors, what happens on partial failures, or the confirm failure case.

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, both meaningful and front-loaded. The confirm requirement and overwrite behavior are the critical facts and they're placed first. Efficient with zero filler, though could use a brief sentence on output structure.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description should explain the non-obvious parameters (indexes format, size limits, uid/folder relationship). The description only covers confirm and the overwrite policy. For a mutating download tool with size limits and an indexes selection mechanism, the guidance is substantially incomplete.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. The description mentions 'selected attachments' (mapping to indexes) and the confirm constraint, but doesn't explain uid, folder, output_dir, or the size-limit parameters (max_total_bytes, max_download_bytes) at all. The indexes parameter semantics (how they're formatted, what they refer to) are left unexplained.

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 the verb (download) and resource (attachments) clearly. It adds the important safety context that it requires confirm='DOWNLOAD' and never overwrites files, which distinguishes it from generic download behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the verb+resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 mentions a confirm requirement (confirm='DOWNLOAD') and the never-overwrite behavior, which are both usage constraints. However, it doesn't explain when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., batch download via execute_batch_actions), nor does it state prerequisites like needing indexes from a prior listing step. The guidance is thin but not misleading.

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