get_attachment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers read-safety, and the description adds the useful fact that the operation writes to a local path. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, failure modes, or how max_bytes affects the download. The annotation lowers the bar, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with the core operation front-loaded. It contains no redundant filler, though the '(unconfigured)' prefix adds slight noise. Overall the structure is appropriately lean.

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 five parameters, four required, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits practical details like how to identify attachments, what max_bytes controls, and path expectations. It is minimally usable but not complete enough to guide correct invocation.

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%, and the description only mentions 'attachment' and 'path.' It does not explain account, message_id, attachment_id, save_path, or max_bytes. The description adds little beyond the self-evident parameter names and titles, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Download one attachment to a path.' It clearly identifies the tool as a file-download operation and distinguishes it from sibling message/thread tools at a high level. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_attachment versus alternatives like get_message or get_thread. The description does not mention criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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