Anhang speichern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that it creates the destination folder ('Der Zielordner wird angelegt') and that it saves only the first matching attachment, plus the sorting/exclusion behavior. However, it doesn't disclose write semantics, required permissions, or side effects beyond folder creation. It's a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, so a 3 is appropriate—decent but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences, all substantive. First sentence states the core action, second explains matching and exclusions, third states folder creation. No filler, every sentence 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 tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains matching, exclusions, and folder creation. It could add a return-value note or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if no attachment matches), but given the constraints this is solid.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds matching semantics for attKey (contains, .pdf suffix) and subjKey (Betreff match). The mailboxes parameter says 'Vorgabe wie bei search_messages' deferring to sibling. This adds some value beyond schema but leans on the schema's full coverage.

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 has a specific verb+resource ('Speichert den ersten passenden PDF-Anhang') and clearly specifies the object target ('einer über den Betreff gefundenen Nachricht'). It distinguishes from siblings by its unique purpose (attachment saving vs. messaging/search operations), and even names the sibling search_messages. Very clear.

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 explains the matching criteria precisely: attachment must contain attKey and end in .pdf, explicitly excluding AGB, promotional PDFs, XML, and images. It names the alternative search_messages for the mailbox lookup default. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool relative to get_message_body or flag_message (though the distinction is somewhat obvious).

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