zendesk_download_attachment

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

Without annotations, the description discloses file-type handling (archives unpacked, PDFs text-extracted, images base64-encoded). It does not mention caching duration, permissions, or error behavior, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 four sentences (44 words), front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, param context, input sourcing, and file handling. No redundant information.

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 complexity (3 params, varied file types) and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input sources, and file-specific transformations. It does not explain the output schema, but since one exists, that is acceptable. Minor gaps in error handling and size limits.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains ticket_id's role and suggests where to get other params. However, it does not detail constraints or formats for attachment_url or filename, leaving some gaps.

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 'Download a Zendesk attachment and return its contents,' specifying the verb (download) and resource (attachment). It also references the sibling tool for obtaining inputs, distinguishing it from zendesk_list_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?

Provides clear context: ticket_id is for cache organization, and attachment_url/filename come from zendesk_list_attachments. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is uniquely positioned among siblings.

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