attach-file

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It gives no information about side effects (e.g., file storage, permissions, overwrite behavior), error conditions, or response format.

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 extremely short (3 Chinese characters), but this is underspecification rather than conciseness. It omits critical information that would be expected in a single-sentence description.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no schema explanations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no context for how the tool fits into the workflow or what constitutes a successful 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (guid, mime, confirm, fileName, filePath, maxBytes), leaving their purposes entirely to the agent's inference.

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 '加附件' (add attachment) essentially restates the tool name 'attach-file', providing no additional specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools only by the resource type (file vs note/notebook), but the description itself is tautological.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., note existence), or how it differs from related tools like 'replace-note-enml' or 'export-note-resource'.

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