Вложение из чата

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: the default save directory (~/.local/share/tbank-mcp/chat-files/), restrictive permissions (0600), the no-overwrite-unless-flag behavior, the 401 failure mode for cross-conversation file_ids, and a prompt-injection guardrail about treating document content as data. This is rich, actionable context that annotations alone would not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core action and organized into short topic-focused paragraphs (purpose, local-read follow-up, parameter sourcing, storage semantics, security warning). Each sentence carries practical value; there is no tautology or filler despite the density of detail.

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 definition covers the essential call path — where to get parameters, how the pair must originate, where the file lands, permissions, and overwrite rules — and an output schema exists to document return values, so return structure is outside the description's responsibility. Minor gaps remain, such as error handling for when save_to points to a nonexistent parent directory or what exactly happens when an existing file blocks overwrite, and permission sets or failed downloads are not spelled out.

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 description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It explains the exact format of the file_id line, that file_id+conversation_id must come from the same message, that mismatches produce 401, that save_to overrides the default path, and that overwrite=True is required to replace existing files. Every one of the four parameters receives semantic context beyond the bare 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 first sentence gives a concrete verb, resource, and outcome: download a chat attachment (statement, report, certificate) to disk and return a path. It also explicitly differentiates itself from readers/parsers by stating the tool does not parse the file's content, which distinguishes it from messenger_messages and other messaging siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives strong practical context: take file_id and conversation_id from a single messenger_messages() message, warns that mismatched pairs return 401, and tells the agent what to do after the call (read the local file with its own tools). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or excluded cases, but the preconditions for correct use are stated precisely, which effectively routes the agent to the right tool.

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