get_all_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (saving files to ~/Downloads/mcp-attachments/), return behavior (extracted text), and supported formats. It does not mention auth requirements or failure modes, but for an extraction tool this is fairly transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every sentence adds operational value. No fluff or repetition.

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 handles multiple file types with extraction and local saving, and the description covers formats, ID requirement, save path, and output type. It does not mention limits or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by clarifying that email_id is the Gmail message ID (not thread ID) and points to get_email_thread output for reference. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Gmail message id'.

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 it fetches and extracts content from all attachments in one shot, listing supported formats. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_attachment by emphasizing 'all attachments' and 'one shot'.

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?

It explicitly says to call this whenever a thread or email shows attachments, and gives a critical usage note about using the Gmail message ID rather than the thread ID. It stops short of naming alternatives or when not to use, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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