read_message_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that attachments are downloaded and text is extracted per attachment, implying a read operation, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, failure modes for unsupported file types, or any side effects of downloading.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return value and usage condition. Efficient and free of filler, with only the concrete example adding modest length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be documented, yet the description helpfully states text-per-attachment output. For a simple one-parameter read tool the description is largely complete, its main omission being thread_uid provenance and edge-case behavior.

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 0%, so the single thread_uid parameter is undocumented. The description implies it identifies the message thread but adds no format, source, or how to obtain it (e.g. from list_message_threads/get_message_thread), leaving a real gap the schema does not fill.

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 (download and read) and resource (attachments in a message thread), plus what is returned (extracted text per attachment). It is distinguishable from sibling list/get message tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: when a message has attachments (hasAttachments/attachments) and the content is needed, with a concrete example (ukeplan PDF). No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the trigger is unambiguous.

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