Download Page Attachment

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

With only 'openWorldHint: false' in annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses atomic writes, refusal to overwrite unless overwrite is true, unbounded byte streaming, and the fact that content never enters the conversation. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 packs a lot of decision-critical information into two tight sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most important behavioral caveats without redundant filler.

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 tool with five parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It names the source of file IDs, gives the counterpart alternative, explains overwrite semantics, and covers the side-effecting download behavior. Nothing an agent needs to choose or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description repeats that file IDs come from page_get_attachments, which is useful but already present in the file_id schema description. It adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it downloads a Yandex Wiki page attachment to a local file. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling page_read_attachment as the counterpart for obtaining the artifact itself, so an agent can identify the right tool without inspecting schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is for getting the raw artifact bytes, such as a PDF, archive, or large export, and it explicitly names page_read_attachment as the counterpart. It does not spell out hard 'use this instead of X' rules, but the alternative is clearly identified and the artifact-focused purpose is sufficient.

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