redmine_view_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the supported formats (PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP), the return medium (MCP image content), the size ceiling default (5 MB), and the failure behavior (structured error redirecting to download). It does not mention permission/access requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then a clear Args block. Slight redundancy in restating the size ceiling in both the body and the Args section, but overall tight and well organized.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain results itself, which it does by naming the return type (MCP image content) and the error path. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only access/permission behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: attachment_id is defined as a numeric Redmine attachment id and max_bytes as the inline size ceiling with a stated default. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return an image attachment inline so a model can see it') and explicitly scopes which formats qualify. It also names the sibling redmine_download_attachment, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: unsupported types or oversized images return a structured error pointing at redmine_download_attachment, which tells the agent when to fall back. It stops short of stating the positive condition in a general way (e.g. 'use this whenever you need to visually inspect an image'), but the alternative is named with its trigger condition.

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