get_attachment_content

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the two behavioral modes (metadata-only vs full base64 payload) and default behavior. However, does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or safety guarantees beyond the implied read-only nature.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No superfluous words. Every sentence serves a clear role: purpose, usage, default behavior, alternative.

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?

Given no output schema, could explain return format for metadata vs base64, but the description sufficiently covers the two main use cases. Simple tool, adequate completeness for typical attachment reading needs.

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 has 100% description coverage, but description adds context: explains emailId format (FOLDER::UID) and source (get_emails/search_emails), attachmentId origin (list_attachments), and reinforces default for includeBase64. Adds value beyond 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?

Description clearly states action ('Fetch metadata for a specific email attachment') and distinguishes from sibling tools like save_attachment, which writes to disk. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'attachment metadata' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you need to read or process attachment data in-memory') and when not to ('Prefer save_attachment to write the file to disk instead'). Provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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