attachments

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that list is read-only, view retrieves content, and download saves to disk. It also notes auto-creation of outputDir and behavior for binary types. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient (~100 words), front-loads the core purpose, and uses clear structure (action=...). Every sentence conveys essential information without fluff.

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 all three actions, parameter requirements, and edge cases (binary types, directory creation). However, it does not specify the exact return format for the list action, though it lists metadata fields. Missing output schema is partly offset.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying defaults (system tmpdir for outputDir), auto-creation, deprecation of savePath, and requirement of attachmentId for view/download, going beyond 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 'Inspect or retrieve email attachments' and enumerates three distinct actions (list, view, download) with specific purposes. It differentiates from sibling tools like read-email by focusing solely on 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?

The description explains when to use each action (e.g., 'view returns inline content for text/JSON/XML attachments; binary types require download'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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