read_attachments

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds an important behavioral caveat: downloading requires Basic or cookie auth, and using an access token yields an HTML error page instead of the file. This goes beyond the annotations by warning about an authentication edge case that could cause failed downloads or confusing errors.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: the first sentence defines the returned fields, the second adds a critical auth warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words on obvious 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?

Given there is no output schema, listing the fields returned (name, size, type, owner, date, URL) is valuable. The auth caveat is also included, which helps agents anticipate failures. It lacks an explicit statement that the single parameter is the card ID, but the phrase 'Attachments of a card' makes this reasonably inferable. Overall, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only metadata tool.

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 only parameter is a bare 'id'. The description partially compensates by saying the tool returns 'Attachments of a card', implying the id is the card ID, but it never explicitly states that the 'id' parameter refers to the card. No example or further clarification is provided, so the parameter semantics are only weakly inferred rather than clearly documented.

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 the resource as 'Attachments of a card' and enumerates the returned fields (name, size, type, owner, date, URL), making it clear this is a read operation for attachment metadata. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the tool name and field list make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like read_comments and read_card, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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 implies this tool should be used when you need attachment metadata for a card, and it warns about auth requirements for downloading. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over related tools such as read_storage or write_attachment, nor does it specify exclusions. The usage context is clear enough only by inference from the resource and field list.

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