Download Attachment

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the conditional behavior: text files return content directly, while binary files return a download URL. This is valuable transparency, though it does not mention potential error conditions or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a helpful usage hint, and organized Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter download tool, the description is complete. It covers how to obtain the ID, what the return value will be for different file types, and clearly states the output format. No additional information seems necessary.

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 only defines attachment_id as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining it is an Attachment UUID and instructing the user to obtain it from get_merge_request_timeline output, adding meaningful context 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 'Download a file attachment from a Space MR discussion' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_merge_request_timeline by focusing on attachment retrieval, and it explicitly references how to obtain the attachment ID from that sibling tool.

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 provides clear context by instructing to use the attachment ID from get_merge_request_timeline output, which tells the agent when and how to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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