Download an attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the file is written to a temporary folder (ephemeral) and the tool returns a local path rather than the content itself. No auth or rate-limit notes, but the important side effect is disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and destination are front-loaded and the parameter provenance trails as a short instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (a local path). For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description restates the same source (weeek_get_task) without adding format or validation details, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (downloads) and resource (an attachment of a task), and clarifies the outcome (saved to a temporary folder, local path returned). This distinguishes it from the sibling weeek_attach_files, which goes the opposite direction.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required id comes from (weeek_get_task) and gives a motivating use case (open it, e.g. read a screenshot). It does not name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, but the workflow context is clear.

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