gmail_get_attachment

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies a read operation ('Download') with no disclosure of auth needs, rate limits, or output format. Behavior is straightforward, but minimal detail beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives prerequisite. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, description covers essential usage: what it does and how to obtain required IDs. Lacks mention of return format (binary), but that is often assumed for download tools.

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 100%, but description adds operational context: email is the account, filename is optional, messageId and attachmentId come from gmail_read output. This enhances meaning beyond parameter descriptions in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Download an attachment from a Gmail message', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by instructing to use gmail_read first to obtain the attachmentId, which is a unique prerequisite.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use gmail_read first to get the attachmentId'. This clarifies when to use and prerequisite step. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the tool is the only one for this purpose.

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