view-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 clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining how different file types are returned (images inline, text as text, binary as embedded resources), which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, usage, and behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers the input source, supported file types, and return behavior. The annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error cases (e.g., invalid URL), but this is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the fileUrl parameter fully described in the schema. The description reinforces this by explaining the source of the fileUrl ('from a comment's fileAttachment field'), but adds minimal new 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View a file attachment from a Todoist comment.' It specifies the resource (file attachment) and the action (view), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on attachment viewing rather than comment management or other operations.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Pass the fileUrl from a comment's fileAttachment field.' It explains the prerequisite (obtaining the fileUrl from a comment) and the supported file types, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling list suggests other tools for different operations.

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