download_adjunto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the destination resolution order (MCP client root, SAC_DOWNLOAD_DIR env var, ~/Downloads/bogamatic-sac/) and the exact filename pattern. It does not mention potential overwrite behavior or error cases, but the disclosed details are meaningful and go beyond the name and schema.

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 succinct (about 60 words) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by scope, destination selection, and naming. Each sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description fully covers what it does, which types of attachments it handles, how the local destination is determined, and how files are named. An output schema exists, so not describing the return value is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds extra value by explaining that numeroExpediente and fechaOperacion are used in the local filename construction, and by noting that idOperacion is 'prefixed, as returned by parent tools' which reinforces the schema's own note. This goes beyond merely restating 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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Download an attachment locally.' It also explicitly states that it works for both cedulas (via get_detalle_cedula adjuntos[]) and expediente operations (via get_adjuntos_expediente), which clearly differentiates it from sibling read-only getter tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use: after obtaining attachments from either of the two named parent tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative download tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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