Download a specific email attachment by providing folder, UID, and partId, returning its base64-encoded content for further use.
Download one attachment's content (base64-encoded) from an email, identified by folder, UID, and partId (from get_email's attachments list).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| partId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the output is base64-encoded, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it omits potential error conditions, size limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Download'). This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and key identification parameters, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and the key parameter source, but lacks details on error handling, response format beyond base64, or any caveats. For a download tool, it is functional but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all outcomes.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains that partId originates from get_email's attachments list, adding context beyond the schema. Folder and UID are self-explanatory in an email context. This adds meaningful provenance information, though it does not elaborate on formats or constraints.
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 verb 'Download', the resource 'attachment's content', and the specific identification method (folder, UID, partId). It also references get_email's attachments list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on emails or folders rather than attachments.
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 implies when to use this tool by referencing that the partId comes from get_email's attachments list, indicating a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar operations, though siblings are clearly distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.