download_attachment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with downloading. The description adds behavioral details: the file is saved to a local path (side effect), the parent directory must exist, and credentials are never sent to external hosts. These details go beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized with 5 sentences, each providing distinct information. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details constraints and output. While not overly concise, every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema data.

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 no output schema, the description includes the return format ({ savedTo, bytes }). It covers required parameter, optional parameters, security, and file writing constraints. It could mention error cases or file overwrite behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a download 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by specifying that exactly one of url or attachmentId should be passed, that url must be from list_attachments and on the configured host, and that the parent directory for outputPath must exist. This adds context beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Download a Zephyr Scale attachment to a local file') and specifies the resource (attachments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_attachments and delete_attachment by focusing on downloading. The verb 'Download' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (to download attachments) and provides clear guidance on addressing attachments via attachmentId or url. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives. The safety note about url host adds valuable usage context.

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