yahoo_download_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a filesystem write with a hard security constraint (allowed directories, refusal of anything else, YAHOO_MAIL_ALLOWED_DIRS override) and default account resolution from accounts.json. It omits overwrite behavior, what happens when no attachments match, and any size/rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by structured Args entries; each line adds real meaning. The out_dir entry is the longest but its length is justified by the security constraint it conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the risky parts (write target restrictions, account selection, filtering). Minor gaps remain around the no-match/no-attachment case and error behavior, but an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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% (all 5 params undocumented in the schema), yet the description documents every one: msg_id provenance, folder default INBOX, out_dir default plus the security restriction, filename_filter as a case-insensitive substring match, and account key/default semantics.

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 (download) and resource (attachments from a message) with the destination (to disk). No sibling tool overlaps this action, so an agent can identify it unambiguously from the name and first sentence.

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 tells the agent where msg_id comes from (yahoo_list_mail / yahoo_search_mail), which is useful routing context, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives for retrieving attachments versus other mail operations.

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