Lister ou télécharger les pièces jointes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return of base64-encoded content and listing metadata, which is helpful, but it does not mention error handling, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only listing/download operation, this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The conditional (without/with attachmentId) is front-loaded, making the decision path immediately clear. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what each mode returns and the required context (itemId). It omits potential error messages or pagination details, but for a simple tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds the crucial conditional logic that not only defines each parameter's role but explains how they interact. This goes beyond the schema's static field descriptions, providing actionable semantics for an agent.

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 a specific behavior: without attachmentId it lists attachments (with name, type, size, id), with attachmentId it downloads the content base64-encoded. This directly matches the title 'Lister ou télécharger les pièces jointes' and distinguishes the two modes unambiguously.

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 explains precisely when to use each mode (with or without attachmentId), which is exactly the usage guidance needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the sibling tools clearly cover different operations, so the context is implied.

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