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. It discloses the disk write and return value, which is essential, but lacks details on file naming, overwrite behavior, or error handling. This is a notable gap for a tool with a side effect.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear return statement. No filler or redundant content.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose and return value. It does not mention absolute vs relative path or potential file conflicts, but these are minor for a basic download tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra param semantics beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, which already indicate that attachmentId comes from get_email. The description itself does not explain parameters.

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 specific action (download), the resource (email attachment), the target (to disk), and the return value (file path). This distinguishes it from sibling email tools, none of which handle attachment downloading.

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 is implied by the unique purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The schema notes that attachmentId comes from get_email, which is a useful hint, but the description itself doesn't provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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