download_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the file is scanned with Windows Defender and multi-layered heuristic virus scanning before download, and that a detected threat leads to immediate destruction and download cancellation. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare 'downloads attachment' statement.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, and the second adds the critical security behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 description, combined with the complete parameter schema, is sufficient for a basic download action. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not explain return values, error behavior, or what happens on successful download. It is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; 'specified email' and 'attachment' loosely map to uid and attachmentIdentifier, but the schema already documents types, defaults, and required fields.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Belirtilen e-postadaki eki indirir' (downloads the attachment in the specified email). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools such as read_email or send_email, and the verb-resource pairing is 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer download_attachment over alternatives, nor does it give any exclusion criteria. The security warning, while useful, does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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