redmine_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full behavioral burden. It mentions the return format (YAML with status, path, errors) but omits critical details such as file overwrite behavior, authorization requirements, error handling for missing attachments, or network requirements. These gaps significantly reduce transparency.

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 structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Slightly verbose in listing args, but every sentence adds information. Could be more concise but is effective.

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 description covers the core functionality and return format, but lacks behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, error scenarios, or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and behavior (e.g., filename is optional and determined from data if omitted). This adds significant value beyond the schema's basic titles and types.

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 downloads an attachment from Redmine and saves it to a local file, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like redmine_upload (opposite action) and redmine_request (generic), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like redmine_request or redmine_upload. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for optimal use, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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