Download Attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses authentication handling, return types (image block for images, otherwise base64 + metadata), and size-related behavior (larger files return metadata only). It lacks error scenarios and metadata field details, but the coverage is substantial for a download tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value: authentication nuance, return format, and size limits. There is no waste or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a moderately complex 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It covers purpose, authentication requirements, output types, and size cap. An agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly without major gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about authentication and return format, but the maxBytes behavior is already captured in the schema description. It does not meaningfully extend the meaning of cardId or attachmentId beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Download the binary content of a card attachment', using a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_card_attachments (which lists attachments), attach_image_to_card (which uploads), and delete_attachment (which removes).

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 a clear use case: when a plain URL fetch would fail with 401 due to authentication on private boards, this tool provides the correct credentials. It gives contextual guidance even though it doesn't 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.