Get Email Attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: content is base64-encoded (relevant to payload size and decoding). It omits error behavior for unknown email IDs, what happens when an email has no attachments, size limits, and whether inline/embedded attachments are included.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return value and the one non-obvious detail (base64 encoding). No filler 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the shape of each attachment entry (filename, content type, size, content) and edge cases. It conveys the headline return value but leaves the response structure and empty/error cases undocumented.

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 single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (em_xxx format), so the description adds nothing on the parameter side. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns attachment list for an email) plus the content encoding, so an agent can tell it apart from the adjacent get-email-body/get-email-raw/get-email-meta siblings by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related siblings (get-email-meta, get-email-body, get-email-raw) that an agent must choose between. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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