get_message_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' communicates a read-only operation and it lists returned metadata, but it does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or whether missing attachments produce an error or empty result. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with a parenthetical list of returned fields. Every element earns its place and there is no waste.

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 a simple read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the resource and lists key returned fields. It omits usage guidance and permission details, but those are not critical to correct invocation given the fully documented schema.

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 100%, so all three parameters (channelId, messageId, attachmentId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('file attachments on a specific message'), and enumerates returned fields (file names, sizes, content types, URLs). It distinguishes itself from generic message readers like read_messages and list_pinned_messages.

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 usage by specifying 'on a specific message', but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. No sibling directly duplicates this function, yet the agent receives no criteria for selecting this tool over related message-reading tools.

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