attachments_redirect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get redirect URL,' which implies a read operation, but does not explain what the redirect URL is used for, whether it expires, or if any authentication or permissions are needed. This is insufficient for a tool that might have side effects or access controls.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it very concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so a minimal description might be acceptable. However, the return value is not specified beyond 'redirect URL,' leaving ambiguity about the format or behavior. Given the simplicity, this is a minimum viable description, but it could benefit from noting that the URL likely points directly to the attachment content.

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 input schema covers the one parameter (id) with a description 'Attachment ID,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for this dimension.

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 tool's action: 'Get redirect URL for an attachment.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('redirect URL for an attachment'), which distinguishes it from siblings like attachments_list or attachments_delete. However, it doesn't clarify how it differs from file_operations_redirect, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with similar tools like file_operations_redirect. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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