zotero_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a local-only operation and that it resolves paths, which implies a read-only behavior. It does not disclose what happens when an item has no attachments, whether paths are absolute, or whether the tool checks file existence. For a path-resolution tool, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, and the 'Local source only' constraint is placed at the end. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

For a simple path-resolution tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the local-only scope, and the downstream use. It could mention what happens when no attachment exists, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the purpose of the 'keys' parameter (items to resolve attachments for) and the 'contentType' filter example, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('on-disk paths of files attached to the given items'), and a clear downstream purpose ('so the PDF can then be read with the Read tool'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Local source only', which separates it from the broader Zotero search/read tools.

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 when to use it: when you need the on-disk path of an attachment to read it with the Read tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Local source only' qualifier and the explicit Read-tool linkage give clear context. It could be stronger by saying 'use zotero_search first to find item keys' but that is not required.

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