redmine_attachment_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly identifies the HTTP method as GET, signaling a read-only operation, and states that the result is metadata rather than binary content. It does not mention error behavior or auth, but those are less critical for this simple read.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the action and result. The endpoint notation adds precision without extra words.

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 one-parameter GET-by-id tool, the description covers what the tool returns (metadata) and the exact endpoint. There is no output schema, so a reader might want a few example fields, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 does not explicitly describe the id parameter. However, the single required parameter is named 'id' and the description and endpoint make clear it is the attachment ID, so an agent can resolve its meaning without additional guidance.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('attachment'), and the result kind ('metadata'), with the REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like redmine_attachment_download and redmine_attachment_upload without needing to open their schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is present. The word 'metadata' implies it is for retrieving attachment info rather than file content, but it never names alternative tools such as redmine_attachment_download.

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