get_mailing_pdf

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

The description states 'Read-only' and provides the HTTP endpoint and default save path. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, error handling (e.g., missing PDF), authentication needs, or file size limits. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but leaves gaps.

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 concise (4 lines), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes key details like the HTTP route and default save path. No redundant sentences, but could add more context without significant bloat.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (saved file vs. nothing), relationship to other mailing tools, or behavior when a file already exists. An AI agent may lack sufficient context to choose 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'save_path' with a default value and hints that 'scanbox_id' and 'uuid' are path parameters via the HTTP route. However, it does not describe what 'uuid' represents (mailing UUID) or provide detailed context for 'scanbox_id'.

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 mailing's scanned PDF and save it to disk', specifying the verb (download), resource (mailing's scanned PDF), and action (save to disk). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_mailing' (likely metadata) and 'get_mailing_zip' (compressed archive).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_mailing_zip' or 'get_mailing_envelope'. The 'Read-only' note hints at non-destructive use, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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