download_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns metadata (path, filename, type, size), default save location, maximum file size 100 MB, and a sensitive data warning about LLM reading content and protected attachments. Comprehensive.

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 with 5 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, prerequisite, return values, save location, size limit, and security notice. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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's complexity (3 parameters, file handling, sensitivity), the description covers all necessary aspects: how to use, what it returns, size limit, and an important warning about protected attachments. No gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage context of download_url ('from list_event_attachments output'), reinforcing the purpose of save_to, and clarifying instance. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool downloads a file attachment from Indico and saves it locally. It specifies the return values (local file path, filename, content type, size) and distinguishes itself by referencing the prerequisite use of list_event_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?

Explicitly instructs to use list_event_attachments first to obtain the download_url. Provides guidance on data sensitivity and when to confirm with the user. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context makes it clear.

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