resolve_attachment_download_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the URL is 'short-lived', which is important. However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, failure behavior, or whether this is a safe read operation.

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?

One sentence, 8 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits usage context and parameter details. While the output schema covers return values, the lack of guidelines and API token semantics leaves gaps for a straightforward tool. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'attachment' loosely maps to attachment_id, but api_token is completely unaddressed, leaving the agent with no insight into when the token is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and clear resource 'attachment' with outcome 'short-lived storage URL'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools, which deal with conversations, labels, and messages, not attachments.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites like needing the attachment_id from a message, or that this URL should be used immediately due to expiry. The description solely focuses on the action, not the usage context.

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