mbs_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the optional text extraction and the 20k character limit, but the core action 'inspect' is vague—unclear whether it returns file metadata, status, or raw content. It does not describe behavior for non-PDF files when extract_text is true, nor expected response formats.

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 concise sentences present the main purpose and an optional behavior modification. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 description is incomplete for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to explain what 'inspect' returns when extract_text is false, lacks error scenarios, and does not specify response structure. The width and depth of behavior are not adequately covered.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (url and extract_text), which is 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful constraints: the URL must be under /mbs/wp-content/uploads/, and extraction is limited to first 20k chars—details not present in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('Inspect a public file') with a clear resource (files on statisticsmaldives.gov.mv, particularly PDFs under /mbs/wp-content/uploads/). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on file inspection with optional PDF text extraction, differentiating it from content-specific tools like mbs_xlsx_table.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect public files, specifically PDFs in the designated uploads path. It implies a scope without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the path and file type guidance give sufficient situational context.

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