weeek_attach_file

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

The description transparently discloses the tool's safety boundary (allowed directory and refusal for outside paths) and the configurable directory via WEEEK_ATTACH_DIR. This goes beyond the openWorldHint annotation, which only signals external interaction, providing concrete behavioral guidance for error prevention.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and immediately follows with a critical safety note. No redundant words or filler. Perfectly sized for quick parsing.

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 2-parameter tool with openWorldHint and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose and the key security restriction. It omits return behavior or effects on existing attachments, but these are less critical for a straightforward attach operation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for 'path' by detailing the allowed directory constraint, but it does not explicitly clarify path format (absolute vs relative) or elaborate on task_id beyond the task context. Partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('attach'), an object ('local file'), and a target ('WEEEK task'), clearly distinguishing it from all sibling tools. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (attaching a local file to a task) and adds a crucial constraint (only files within the allowed directory). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so clear context without exclusions is sufficient.

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