download_attachment_safe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it blocks risky files and enforces policy checks, which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not disclose the return format, size limits, or error behavior. It says 'before returning data' but does not specify what data. While the safety behavior is disclosed, important operational details remain missing.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. It is concise without being terse.

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?

The tool has a low-complexity footprint (2 params, no output schema), but it sits among closely related siblings (`download_attachment`, `validate_attachment`) and the description only vaguely distinguishes it. It does not explain the return value shape or the exact policy checks, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both required parameters (messageId and attachmentId), and the description adds no additional parameter-specific context. Per calibration, schemas with >80% coverage get a baseline 3; the description does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb ('download') and resource ('one validated attachment'), and the phrase 'Safely' plus 'Blocks risky files' clearly distinguishes it from the plain `download_attachment` sibling. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is the safe/validated alternative to `download_attachment`, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus `validate_attachment` or `list_attachments_with_safety`. It only implies safety context without naming alternatives or providing exclusions.

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