autotask_get_ticket_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an attachment but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide the agent effectively.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response structure, or error cases. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure reliable use by an agent.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'ticket ID and attachment ID' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'ticketId' and 'attachmentId', nor does it explain 'includeData'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and target ('a specific ticket attachment') with identifiers ('by ticket ID and attachment ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_ticket_attachments' or 'autotask_create_ticket_attachment', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'autotask_search_ticket_attachments' for listing attachments or 'autotask_get_ticket_details' for broader ticket information, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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