autotask_get_ticket_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the internal endpoint behavior (child vs top-level), verification against ticketId, size limits, and the dataOmittedReason field. This exceeds expectations for a read tool.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: primary action, mode difference, and caveat about size limits. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain the return shape. It mentions 'metadata only' vs 'base64 binary content' and the dataOmittedReason field. For a single-resource retrieval tool, this is sufficient. Coupled with sibling tools for broader listing, it's complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of includeData (default behavior, fast vs data retrieval), and the purpose of maxInlineBase64Bytes as a safety cap against oversized results. This goes beyond the schema's raw type and default descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ticket attachment') and clearly distinguishes between metadata-only and data retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like autotask_search_ticket_attachments by focusing on a single attachment retrieval with optional binary data.

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 explicitly states when to use includeData=false (fast, browsing) vs true (binary content), and warns about oversized binaries and client limits. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of attachment retrieval is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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