ass_extract_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output is written into workspace.output_dir and how relative paths resolve, plus the return shape, but omits permission requirements, overwrite behavior, and error handling when the named attachment is absent.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Efficient and scannable, with only minor redundancy in restating the return keys that the output schema already covers.

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 3-param tool with a full output schema, the definition covers purpose and all parameters adequately. The remaining gap is behavioral (no annotations, no error/overwrite disclosure), which would matter for a write-to-disk operation.

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 must compensate, and it does: it documents all three params, adding non-obvious semantics like case-insensitive name matching, doc_id=None meaning the current document, and output_path resolving inside workspace.output_dir.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Decode an attachment and write it into the workspace output directory.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings ass_list_attachments, ass_add_attachment, and ass_remove_attachment, which handle listing/adding/removing rather than decoding to disk.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose (extract an attachment's decoded bytes to a file), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no routing to alternatives. The agent must infer that this differs from add/remove/list siblings.

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