download_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (Dict with status, message, base64 content) but does not mention side effects, auth needs, or error conditions. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with clear sections: title, prerequisites, args, returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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?

For a simple download tool with output schema present, the description covers prerequisites and return format. It is nearly complete, though missing potential error handling details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter (doc_id is document ID, attachment_id is attachment ID). However, it lacks details on format, constraints, or examples, providing only minimal clarification.

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 verb 'download' and the resource 'attachment content'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_attachment_info (metadata) and upload_attachment by explicitly mentioning prerequisites that involve them.

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?

Prerequisites are listed (list_attachments, get_attachment_info) providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the prerequisites.

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