weeek_get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the return type is conditional – hosted images come back as the image itself, everything else as metadata. It omits auth needs, error/failure behavior, and size limits, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds the image-reading rationale and id provenance. Slightly narrative but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover returns and it does explain the two return shapes. The remaining gap is the undocumented `metadataOnly` flag, which an agent would need to know to force metadata-only responses.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `id` (provenance from the task attachments list) but never mentions the `metadataOnly` boolean, leaving one of two parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 one WEEEK attachment by id') and is immediately distinguishable from the upload sibling weeek_attach_file. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

It explains where ids come from (a task's `attachments` list via weeek_get_task) and gives a concrete motivating scenario for reading images rather than guessing from text. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion, but the routing context is clear.

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