download_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the security consideration and enablement requirement, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens if the save path is invalid. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the basic operation and a critical prerequisite, but given the five parameters and the presence of an output schema, it does not explain return values, success/failure criteria, or edge cases. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It restates the save_path as 'absolute path,' but does not clarify format or constraints not covered by the schema.

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 downloads an email attachment and saves it to a path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_emails_content and list_emails_metadata, which deal with email content and metadata.

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 explicitly mentions that the feature must be enabled via settings (enable_attachment_download=true), providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not give guidance on when not to use or how it compares to other methods of obtaining attachments.

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