download_attachment

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: inline rendering for images, error for non-images, and suggestion to use content_url. It lacks details on authentication or side effects, but for a download tool, this is sufficient.

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 relatively concise, with the key action in the first sentence. The usage guidance and parameter info are front-loaded. Slight redundancy in repeating '첨부파일' could be tightened, but overall well-structured.

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 description covers the core functionality and edge cases (image vs non-image) without an output schema. It lacks details on error messages or return format, but the tool's behavior is sufficiently explained for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema: it only restates the parameter as 'attachment file ID'. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not provide additional context or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: downloading attachments and inline display for images. It distinguishes itself by specifying behavior for two types of attachments, which is not covered by sibling 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for image attachments) and what to do for non-images (use content_url directly). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though no sibling handles downloads.

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