get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the base64 output format, the 2 MiB size cap, and rejection of executables, zip, and eml files, which are important constraints. It does not list every allowed type or describe error responses, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and then add constraints without filler or repetition of schema content. Every word contributes useful information.

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 description covers output format, size limits, and rejected types, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the source of uid unstated and does not enumerate the allowlisted types. The definition is close but has clear gaps for a tool with moderate parameter complexity.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The schema documents part, folder, and account_id, but uid is left unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving a real gap at 75% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download one attachment as base64.' This clearly states what the tool does and its output format, distinguishing it from siblings like list_attachments and get_message without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrasing 'Download one attachment' makes it clear this tool is for retrieving attachment content, while siblings like list_attachments are for listing attachments. The usage context is unambiguous even though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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