Get knowledge article attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds error behavior (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), which is real value beyond annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, result shape, or why these two Sys IDs are needed together.

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?

Sized appropriately for a docstring, but it is Sphinx boilerplate (:param/:type/:return/:raises) rather than front-loaded prose, and the ':return' line spends words on a parsed Pydantic model that conveys no actionable information.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description leaves most parameters undocumented and gives no sense of filtering, pagination, or what the returned attachment contains. It also claims required-parameter errors even though the schema marks nothing required, leaving the required-argument story ambiguous.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it documents only article_sys_id and attachment_sys_id. The ten remaining parameters (textSearch, sysparm_limit, sysparm_query, sysparm_offset, sysparm_fields, name_value_pairs, sysparm_search_id, sysparm_search_rank, sysparm_update_view, api_parameters) are left completely unexplained.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get Knowledge Base article attachment'), but it essentially restates the title and adds no differentiation from close siblings such as servicenow_get_attachment or servicenow_get_knowledge_article. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no help distinguishing which attachment-retrieval tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools (e.g., get_attachment for non-KB attachments). The reader must infer the calling context entirely from the name.

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