Get a Redmine attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool never downloads files, never changes metadata, and never deletes attachments, and it discloses that Redmine enforces visibility and may return 401/403/404. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and endpoint appear in the first sentence, followed by parameter constraints, response contents, error behavior, and explicit non-actions. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema 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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the endpoint, parameter constraint, response contents, error conditions, and non-behaviors. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description need not explain them.

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 fully documents the single parameter (attachment_id as a positive safe integer). The description reinforces this by restating the requirement ('required attachment_id is a positive safe integer') and noting there are no query or include controls, which adds a small amount of context 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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('one visible Redmine attachment'), and the exact endpoint (GET /attachments/:id.json). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_project_files or get_issue by focusing on the attachment resource. The scope ('for the configured API user') adds precision.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to read a single attachment by ID. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing attachments or downloading files, but it does state what this tool does not do ('never downloads files'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. The visibility enforcement and possible HTTP error codes provide context for when the call may fail.

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