att

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that `get` writes the attachment to the local downloads folder and returns its path, clarifying the meaningful side effect behind `readOnlyHint: false`. It does not explain filename collisions, overwrite behavior, or listing output, but nothing contradicts the non-destructive annotations.

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 single compact sentence front-loads the resource and efficiently maps both actions without filler. Although terse, every clause contributes useful operational or output information.

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?

Together, the description and schema supply the required target, action default, attachment numbering, download destination, and `get` result, which is enough for most invocations. With no output schema, the lack of listing-output details and file collision or error behavior prevents full completeness.

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%, and the schema already documents the `alvo` formats, `acao` enum and default, and the source and constraints of `n`. The description reinforces the roles of `acao` and `n` but adds little parameter meaning beyond those structured fields, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as email attachments and distinguishes both operations: `ls` lists them, while `get` downloads attachment `n`. It compensates well for the opaque name `att`, but does not explicitly contrast the tool with its sibling mail tools.

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?

It gives concrete action-selection guidance: use `acao ls` to list and `acao get` with `n` to download. It provides no exclusions or sibling alternatives, and the prerequisite of obtaining `n` from `att ls` appears only in the schema rather than the description.

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