codebreaker_get_attachment

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

The description discloses that the tool downloads to a local cache and returns a path, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention other details like auth or size limits, but the annotation covers the safety profile and the added caching detail is useful.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by a useful usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description explains what the tool does, what it returns (a path), and how to know when to use it. With no output schema, it would benefit from specifying the return type (e.g., string path), but the overall guidance is sufficient for a simple single-parameter 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?

The input schema only lists problem_id as a required string with no description. The description refers to 'a problem's attachment' but does not explicitly state that problem_id is the identifier of the problem whose attachment is being downloaded. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more, though the tool name and context make the parameter fairly obvious.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a problem's attachment (a zip of input files)') and clearly states the result ('return its path'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codebreaker_get_problem and codebreaker_list_problems.

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 explicitly instructs to check codebreaker_get_problem's has_attachment first, providing a clear precondition and relationship to a sibling tool. This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to avoid it.

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