buzz_attachment_read

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses the polymorphic return behavior (text for docs, saved file path otherwise) and the access precondition ('a message you can read'). However, it does not disclose file persistence/location, permission implications, or error behavior for an invalid index or missing attachment.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return behavior, followed by identification and index guidance. Every sentence contributes essential invocation or selection information, with no filler.

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 3-parameter read/download tool with no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs to call correctly: message identity components, index usage, and the return format. Minor omissions like supported attachment types or saved-file location do not prevent correct invocation or selection.

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 67%, leaving channel undescribed by the schema. The description adds the critical relationship 'channel + event' as the message identifier, and clarifies event as coming from buzz_read's <id>. It also reinforces the default index behavior, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter list.

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, concrete operation: 'Download an attachment from a message you can read and return it.' It clearly targets message attachments, distinguishing it from sibling tools like buzz_read (messages) and buzz_post (messages). The parenthetical output difference (text extraction vs saved file path) further clarifies the tool's resource and behavior.

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 gives clear usage context: the message is identified via channel + event, with event sourced from buzz_read's <id>, and index sels attachment among multiple. It does not explicitly contrast with possible direct-message attachment flows or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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