gmail_get_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Download' and that data is returned as base64, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects on the message, or potential limitations like size constraints. This is minimal disclosure.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the action and result. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but with no annotations and no parameter explanations, the description leaves gaps: no mention of how to obtain the required IDs, no error handling expectations, and no relationship to other Gmail tools. It is incomplete as a standalone definition.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the purpose or format of message_id and attachment_id, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. This is insufficient for a low-coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Download') with a clear resource ('a Gmail attachment') and states the output format (base64 data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_read_message and gmail_search.

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 action is clearly implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining attachment_id), and no exclusions. It is acceptable but not explicit.

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