gmail_attachment_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 states the core action ('download') but omits details such as permissions required, file overwrite behavior, size limits, or error handling. The description is minimal but not misleading; a score of 3 reflects adequate transparency for a simple download operation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and quickly provides a key prerequisite. However, it could be slightly expanded (e.g., parameter details) without losing conciseness; the current length is appropriate but lacks some completeness.

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 the tool is a simple download with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and how to get the `attachment_id`. However, it omits details about the `save_to` path (absolute vs relative, directory existence) and any potential error scenarios. It is marginally adequate for a basic tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the `attachment_id` parameter (how to obtain it) and does not describe `account`, `message_id`, or `save_to`. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving users unclear about the purpose or constraints of three required parameters.

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's action: 'Download one attachment to a local path.' It identifies the specific resource (attachment) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_message_get (which retrieves message payloads) or gmail_send. The mention of 'attachment_id' and how to obtain it further solidifies the purpose.

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 a prerequisite: 'Get `attachment_id` from the message payload parts (gmail_message_get with format=full).' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it) or provide contrasts with other tools. The context is helpful but insufficient for comprehensive usage guidance.

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