redmine_download_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the side effect of writing to the local filesystem and that it returns a local file path. It does not detail error handling, overwrite behavior, or directory creation, which are potential concerns for a download tool, but the essential behavior is covered.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a practical tip and return value. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple download tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the purpose, prerequisite, and return value. While it lacks error-handling details or caution about file system side effects, the complexity is low and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a workflow hint about using redmine_get_issue to find attachment IDs, which gives context for attachment_id but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond 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 a file attachment from Redmine to the local filesystem, using a specific verb-resource-destination structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_get_issue (which retrieves issue data) and other Redmine management 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?

The description explicitly instructs to 'Use redmine_get_issue first to see available attachments and their IDs,' providing a clear prerequisite and workflow for obtaining the required attachment_id. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use this tool.

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