Get ServiceNow attachment metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful scope ('single attachment', 'metadata'), but it does not disclose output shape or any edge-case behavior.

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?

One sentence with the action and object front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it. There is no output schema, but 'metadata' conveys the return type at a useful level; more detail about returned fields would be a minor enhancement.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including a reference to servicenow_list_instances for the instance parameter. The tool description echoes 'by its sys_id' but adds no significant meaning 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 'Read', a specific resource 'a single attachment's metadata', and the method 'by its sys_id'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which are about instance management, status, and connection testing.

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 clearly implies the prerequisite: you must have an attachment_sys_id and want metadata for one attachment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the listed sibling tools perform attachment operations.

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