islamhouse_item_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only specifies what is returned (attachments) but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the result varies by item type. This is insufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from structured details.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return format (e.g., is it a list? what fields per attachment?). The current description is too sparse for an agent to fully anticipate the output.

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 already describes the parameter 'id' as 'Item ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond restating the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource 'attachments for an IslamHouse item', and lists examples of attachment types (PDFs, MP3s, links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like islamhouse_item_details or islamhouse_item_translations.

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 description implies usage when fetching attachments for a specific item, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate.

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