discord_download_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading and returning an MCP file reference, but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, rate limits, file size constraints, error handling, or what happens if the URL is invalid. For a download operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place: 'Download a Discord attachment' specifies the action, 'and return it as MCP file reference' clarifies the output. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output specifics (beyond 'MCP file reference'). For a download tool with no annotations, it should do more to guide the agent, but it meets a basic threshold.

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%, with the single parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema as a Discord CDN URL. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or format clarifications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Download') and resource ('Discord attachment'), specifying it returns an MCP file reference. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_list_attachments (which lists rather than downloads) and discord_send_message (which sends rather than downloads). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Discord CDN URL), exclusions, or related tools like discord_list_attachments for finding attachments to download. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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