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. It mentions 'Read from saved_path' without explaining what that means (e.g., does it read a file or save a path?). No information is given about required permissions, side effects (overwriting), size limits, or error handling. The action is partially clear but lacks depth.

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?

At two sentences, the description is concise. However, the second sentence 'Read from saved_path' is cryptic and potentially misleading. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded. The second sentence could be omitted or clarified. Overall, it is short but weakens the clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or side effects (e.g., where files are saved, what is returned). It only mentions 'Read from saved_path' which is vague. No information on handling multiple attachments, errors, or file naming. The description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 coverage is 71%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond mentioning attachment_sys_id and table+record. It does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., exclusivity) or clarify defaults like output_dir or download_all. The description provides minimal added value over 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 clearly states the verb 'download' and the resource 'ServiceNow attachment file(s)'. It specifies two ways to identify the attachment (by sys_id or by table+record), which adds useful detail. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like download_app_sources or download_portal_sources that also download files.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios are mentioned.

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