Download Attachment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns base64 content along with metadata and rejects files larger than 10485760 bytes before downloading. This goes beyond the annotation and is consistent with read-only semantics.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and provides key output and error details efficiently.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the return payload and a critical size-based rejection condition. However, it does not explicitly state that resource and id together identify the attachment, which is important since `resource` is undocumented in the schema. Overall, it is adequate for a simple download tool.

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 only 50% (id has a description, resource does not). The tool description does not clarify the roles of `resource` and `id` or how they identify the attachment, nor does it add any parameter-level detail. The description focuses on return values, not input semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action (download), the target (attachment file contents), and the output format (base64 plus filename, content type, size, sha1). It distinguishes the tool from sibling attachment_upload and attachment_list 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 implies usage when the agent needs to fetch an attachment's file contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like attachment_list or attachment_upload. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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