get_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Download/extract' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about authentication needs, attachment size limits, what happens with multiple matches, or how the payload is delivered (binary vs. saved file), which matters for a download tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb and resource stated first and zero wasted words. Appropriate length for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, for a tool requiring a message_id that must be sourced elsewhere, the absence of any prerequisite or workflow guidance leaves a small but real gap.

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 100%, and all three parameters (folder, message_id, attachment_name_or_index) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('download/extract') and resource ('attachment from an email message'), which cleanly separates it from every sibling, none of which deal with attachments. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't contrast itself with alternatives (e.g. read_email) the way a maximally differentiated definition would.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a message_id must first be obtained via list_emails/search_emails), and no stated alternatives. The usage is only vaguely implied by the tool name and description.

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