nworks_mail_download_attachment

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

Description exceeds annotations by specifying OAuth requirements, output modes (file vs. direct content), and the 5MB limitation. Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent, but description adds meaningful behavioral context not covered by annotations.

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?

Description is succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose and key conditions (outputDir, file size limit). Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description provides enough detail on return modes and constraints. The complexity is moderate and fully addressed with parameter semantics and usage guidance. Missing details like empty states or error handling are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 all parameters with descriptions, and the tool description further clarifies the roles of mailId, attachmentId, outputDir, and outputName. Even though coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining when to use outputDir for large files and specifying content type handling.

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?

Description clearly states the tool downloads mail attachments, identifies required parameters (mailId, attachmentId), and explains the output behavior (file save or direct return). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on attachment download specifically.

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 mentions that mailId and attachmentId can be obtained via nworks_mail_read, and that OAuth scope mail.read is needed舋clearly setting the context. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but the focused purpose and sibling names (e.g., mail_send, mail_read) make the intent clear.

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