Attachments Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured metadata. The description adds the specific information content (attachment enablement status and relationship class name), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions, path constraints, or execution context. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It immediately states the action and the information retrieved, and every part of the sentence contributes meaning. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, and annotations fully cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description clearly states what information is read. The main remaining gap is the lack of any detail about the dataset_path parameter format, which slightly limits completeness for invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter, dataset_path, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies a dataset is the input via '数据集' but does not explain what form dataset_path takes, whether it is a feature class, table, or layer path, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for the only parameter.

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 read operation on a named resource: whether a dataset has attachments enabled and the related relationship class name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_attachments, disable_attachments, add_attachments, and remove_attachments. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives or exclusions. It only states what is read, leaving the agent to infer that this is the tool for checking attachment configuration. No explicit routing to or away from sibling tools is provided.

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