redmine_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the save_path must be within REDMINE_ALLOWED_DIRECTORIES, the optional filename behavior, and that returns are a YAML string with status, file path, and errors. These go beyond the obvious and materially help an agent anticipate side effects and error handling.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, then Args list, then Returns. No redundant text, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Each line earns its place.

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 download tool with three parameters (one optional) and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: directory restriction, optional filename nuance, and return format. It does not mention overwrite behavior or specific failure modes beyond generic error messages, but given the output schema exists, these are minor gaps.

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%, yet the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: attachment_id (the ID), save_path (fully qualified file path with a directory restriction), and filename (optional, for the download URL, not affecting save path). This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 opening sentence states the exact action: 'Download an attachment from Redmine and save it to a local file.' This clearly identifies the verb (download), resource (attachment), and destination (local file). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like redmine_upload and redmine_request.

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 its use case by specifying it downloads attachments and saves locally. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the purpose is so unambiguous that an agent would not confuse it with siblings. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear.

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