brightspace_read_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'visible' scoping constraint (only readable through a visible parent), but says nothing about extraction behavior, truncation notices when maxChars is hit, or OCR cost/latency for scans, which are the real unknowns for this operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded ahead of the selection constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (extracted plain text? binary?), how truncation is signalled, or how OCR and section pagination differ in use. The rich schema compensates for parameter detail, but the return-shape gap leaves it merely adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a point by stating that exactly one parent must be supplied, making the folderId vs newsItemId mutual exclusivity explicit where the schema only lists both as optional properties. It adds no guidance on offset/maxChars paging semantics beyond the schema text.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a file') and bounds it to attachments of a visible assignment or announcement, which distinguishes it from siblings like brightspace_read_topic and brightspace_view_page. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Supply exactly one parent and its attachment FileId' gives a hard precondition, and 'visible assignment or announcement' establishes the context in which the tool applies. No explicit exclusion or alternative route is named for cases where the file is not an attachment, so it lacks the routing guidance of a 5.

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