get_attachment_action_details

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 only states the basic action ('Get details') without mentioning permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and key parameter, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'details' entail, potential error cases, or authentication needs. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for the agent to use the tool effectively is lacking, especially compared to richer sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify ID format or examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details for an attachment action by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_attachment_action' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, which could help differentiate it further from other 'get_' tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving attachment action details by ID, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID) or when to choose this over other 'get_' tools like 'get_message_details'. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without explicit direction.

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