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 of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'download' but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, whether it writes to the output_path (though that is implied by the parameter), what happens if the attachment is missing, or any side effects. The agent gets no insight into the tool's actual runtime behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that earns its place. It is not bloated, but it also lacks any additional structure or useful detail. For such a simple tool, the brevity is acceptable, though it could have included more information without losing conciseness.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns (file content, success message, etc.), whether it creates directories for the output_path, or how errors are reported. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too much to imagination.

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 description coverage is 100% with basic descriptions like 'Page ID' and 'Attachment ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents all three parameters adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or enrich the parameter understanding.

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 'Download a Confluence attachment' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_attachments (which likely lists attachments) and upload_attachment (which uploads). It directly states the action and object, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the page_id and attachment_id obtained via get_attachments, nor does it contrast with other tools. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the operation name alone.

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