get_event_attachment

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail that binary attachments return metadata rather than content, and that grep_pattern can filter large logs.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded: the core read action comes first, followed by the binary limitation and the grep_pattern optimization. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only attachment reader with full schema coverage and strong annotations. It explains the important binary-attachment edge case, though it does not describe the response shape for text attachments in detail.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including grep_pattern and max_chars. The description reinforces grep_pattern's purpose for large logs but does not add substantial semantics beyond the 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: read the contents of a text attachment on an event. It also gives a concrete example and immediately clarifies the binary-attachment exclusion, which helps distinguish this from listing 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?

Gives clear usage context for large logs via grep_pattern and notes that binary attachments are not returned. It does not explicitly name list_event_attachments as the prerequisite/alternative, but the schema parameter descriptions already point there.

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