Get Attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context by listing the exact fields returned (name, download_url, view_url, size, host, created_at, parent) and explains the download_url's purpose. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output and usage.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-attachment getter, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to access the file, and names the alternative for listing. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameters. No critical information is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating that it fetches by GID. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states 'Get full details for a single attachment by GID', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool asana_get_attachments_for_object by explicitly mentioning that the sibling is for listing all attachments.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use the download_url to access the file' and 'Use asana_get_attachments_for_object to list all attachments on a task.' This clearly tells when to use this tool vs. the alternative, with no ambiguity.

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