read_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is clear. The description adds value by specifying that content is 'size-capped', which is crucial behavioral information not captured in annotations. It could be improved by noting the cap size or behavior when exceeded, but overall adds transparency.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No superfluous 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools that also read data, the description is minimally complete for a simple read tool. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not clarify the return structure (though output schema may cover that). The size-cap info is good, but overall could be more thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what the three parameters (instance, include_data, attachment_id) mean and how they affect the operation. It does not do so. The description only mentions the overall action, leaving parameter semantics completely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and a precise resource 'ir.attachment', and it clearly states what is returned (metadata and size-capped base64 content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_record or execute_method, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for reading attachments, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks direct directives.

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