pine_upload_attachment

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns attachment metadata and the file is uploaded for a session. However, it omits details like file size limits, allowed types, auth requirements, or whether uploads are permanent. Adequate but could be more informative.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage instruction, then parameter documentation. No wasted words, efficient structure.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and input. Missing potential constraints like file size or type, but overall sufficient for a basic upload 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds 'Absolute path to the file to upload' to the parameter file_path, clarifying its purpose and format. This compensates for the missing schema description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Upload', the resource 'file for a Pine AI session', and enumerates example types (bill, screenshot, document). It distinguishes from siblings like pine_delete_attachment (delete) and pine_send_message (use the attachment).

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?

Explicitly instructs to pass the returned metadata to pine_send_message via the attachments parameter, indicating a clear workflow. Lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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