attachments

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

The description discloses key behaviors such as read-only nature of list/view and download writing to disk, aligning with annotations. However, it does not cover potential side effects like disk space usage or security implications, which would be valuable for an agent.

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 well-structured and informative, front-loading the purpose and then detailing each action. While slightly long, every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 three actions and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers return types for each action (metadata, inline content, file path). It also notes deprecation and default behavior. Minor gaps exist, such as error handling or permissions, but overall it's commendably complete.

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 schema covers all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for action, messageId, attachmentId, and outputDir, but introduces a non-existent parameter (outputVerbosity), which confuses the schema. This inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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: inspecting or retrieving email attachments with three distinct actions. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on attachments, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 guidance on when to use each action (list, view, download) and notes constraints like binary types requiring download. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, leaving some ambiguity.

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