download_attachment

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

The description discloses the return format (base64-encoded bytes) and implies a read operation, which is sufficient for a download tool. It does not mention permissions or size limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple download operation, it omits parameter explanations and does not mention any limitations or dependencies, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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?

The parameters message_id and attachment_id are only named in the schema with no descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on their roles or how they relate, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from context.

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's purpose: to retrieve attachment content, and specifies the output format (base64-encoded bytes). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_attachments which list attachments without content.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it implies it is for fetching actual content rather than metadata. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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