choerodon_download_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool resolves to a signed download address, implying it is a read/transform operation. It does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a full behavioral picture.

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 sentence that fully conveys the tool's core action. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information is present.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description is minimal but complete enough given this low complexity: it explains what the tool does with the single input. It does not detail the output, but the output schema can handle that. Remaining gaps (e.g., error cases) are minor.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It succinctly explains the purpose of the file_url parameter: it is an attachment URL to be resolved. While no additional syntax or format details are given, for a single required parameter with a self-explanatory name, this provides sufficient meaning.

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 tool converts an attachment URL to a downloadable signed address via the hfle interface. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like choerodon_list_attachments, which lists attachments but does not download 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?

The description implies usage when needing to download an attachment, but provides no guidance on when to avoid using it, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. Given the tool has only one required parameter, the context is clear but minimal.

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