attachments

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate the tool is not fully read-only nor destructive. The description clarifies that the tool reads attachments (list, view) and downloads to disk, which is a write operation to the local filesystem but not to the email server. This adds context beyond annotations, but does not fully disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting). No contradiction found.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first defines the tool's domain, and the second lists actions with critical details. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, 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?

Given 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the three actions and their parameter requirements. However, it does not specify the return value format for list or view (e.g., list of attachment IDs, metadata structure), which would enhance completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by linking actions to required parameters (e.g., attachmentId required for view/download, outputDir for download). This helps the agent understand parameter dependencies beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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: 'Manage email attachments.' It then breaks down three distinct actions (list, view, download) with brief explanations, making the tool's function unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like 'read-email' or 'search-emails'.

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 implies usage for attachment operations (list, view, download) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'read-email' or 'search-emails'. There are no exclusions or context about prerequisites, though the action enumeration provides some implicit guidance.

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