crm_get_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but doesn't mention return format, pagination behavior, potential empty results, or any side effects. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect assumptions about the tool's 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?

The description is extremely brief (6 words), which is concise but not appropriately structured. It omits essential context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't earn its place by conveying necessary details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the agent can expect to receive (e.g., list of attachment metadata, URLs, file contents). It doesn't address return values, supported modules, or pagination defaults, leaving significant gaps for a tool with only a name and params.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (module, record_id, page, per_page). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('attachments for a CRM record'), which sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools. It doesn't provide scope details like supported modules or attachment types, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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