download_attachments

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the write-to-disk nature is expected; the description adds real context beyond that: files land in a configured download folder and already-current files are skipped (idempotency). It omits any auth/permission or volume/rate context.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded; the filter semantics follow, and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema and no annotation detail on results, but the description covers destination and skip behavior, which is what an agent needs to reason about side effects. The unexplained required parameters (plan_id, service_type_id) are the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain attachment_ids (with their source tool) and file_types (with an example) plus the unfiltered default, but the two REQUIRED parameters, plan_id and service_type_id, receive no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (attachments) scoped to 'one of your plans', with the destination ('configured download folder') named. It also distinguishes itself from list_attachments by pointing there as the source of attachment_ids.

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?

Explains the two operating modes clearly: filtered via attachment_ids/file_types, or everything when neither is supplied. It routes to list_attachments for obtaining IDs, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. volume, rate, or re-run caveats).

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