Get attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations: it does not explain return format, required permissions, or error behavior. It neither contradicts nor enriches the structured data.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no useful information to front-load and fails to provide the minimum context an agent needs. Brevity here comes at the cost of 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 tool with 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what is retrieved, how to identify the attachment, or what the agent should expect. The annotations cover safety but cannot compensate for missing functional 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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It provides no insight into what data, sys_id, file_name, table_name, content_type, table_sys_id, or encryption_context mean or how they relate to retrieving an attachment. With zero coverage and zero compensation, this is a serious 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 is a tautology: 'Invoke the get_attachment operation' merely restates the tool name and title without stating what specifically is retrieved or from where. It gives an agent no additional signal beyond the tool name itself, and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like servicenow_get_knowledge_article_attachment or servicenow_upload_attachment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention that a sys_id, table_name, or file_name may be needed, nor when to prefer this over servicenow_upload_attachment or servicenow_delete_attachment. No usage context is provided.

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