get_memento_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite dependency (requires init/get_mementos first), which is useful, but it doesn't describe what the return payload looks like, whether it's a read-only safe operation, performance/latency implications of fetching all attachments, or error conditions. For a tool that fetches potentially large attachment data, the cost implication is understated.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. It states the purpose, the usage constraint, and the prerequisite in under 20 words. Front-loaded with the purpose before the caveats.

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-parameter read tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states purpose, when to use, and prerequisite. However, no annotations exist and there's no output schema, so the description should hint at what the return data looks like (attachment files, presumably paths or blobs) and any cost implication of fetching attachments. The prerequisite detail is good, but the attachment-heavy nature of this read is worth flagging.

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 100%, and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Exact memento ID to inspect.' The description adds the prerequisite context of which prior tool provides a valid ID, but doesn't add substantially beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the parameter documentation and the description confirms the ID comes from prior steps.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Reads and returns all attachment files for a specific memento.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying attachments specifically, differentiating it from get_mementos which presumably lists mementos without attachments. However, it doesn't explicitly name which siblings it differs from beyond the mention of init/get_mementos.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this only when the extra detail is needed' and explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires init_memento or get_mementos first.' It gives context on when to invoke and what must happen first, though it doesn't name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the implied 'only when needed.'

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