hackerone_download_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the download destination, the file size cap, and the return value (file path). It does not cover failure modes or overwrite behavior, but the disclosed behavioral details are meaningful and non-obvious.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no filler. The primary action and destination come first, and the size cap and return type are stated efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter download tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it specifies where the file goes, the size limit, and what is returned. It omits failure handling and attachment selection behavior, but the schema covers the optional attachment_id behavior, keeping the gap minor.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both report_id and attachment_id sufficiently. The description adds context about the download destination and cap but does not elaborate on parameter formatting, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Download' with a clear resource 'report attachment', a destination directory, and an explicit 25MB cap. It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which handle attachment downloads.

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 tool's purpose makes its use case fairly obvious, and no sibling tool competes for the same action. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus alternatives or mention any preconditions, such as needing a valid report_id.

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