get_attachment_presigned_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention that a presigned URL may expire, expose a file without further authentication, or require specific permissions. It only states the action without explaining behavioral implications.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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, the agent cannot know whether the response is a raw URL string or a JSON object containing the URL. The description also omits any note about the attachment needing to exist. These are notable gaps, though the tool is simple enough to remain minimally usable.

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 schema only provides a generic 'id' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the parameter is an attachment ID, which materially improves an agent's ability to populate the argument correctly.

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 ('Get'), a distinct resource ('presigned URL for an attachment'), and the key input ('by attachment ID'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools because none mention presigned URLs, removing ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_attachment or other get_* tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or why this tool should be selected over others.

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