autotask_search_ticket_attachments

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries behavioral disclosure. It warns about per-ticket queries and the need to scope before iterating. However, it does not mention return format, pagination behavior beyond pageSize, or any side effects (though likely read-only). The description adds value but lacks full transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the warning is concise yet informative.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key usage pattern and a common pitfall. It lacks details about the return structure (e.g., list of attachment objects) but given the context of sibling tools and no output schema, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: ticketId and pageSize. The description adds 'scope the parent ticket list' as indirect guidance but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for attachments on a specific ticket' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_get_ticket_attachment (gets a specific attachment) and autotask_create_ticket_attachment by focusing on searching across attachments for a given ticket.

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 advises that 'Each parent triggers a separate query — scope the parent ticket list before iterating,' implying that this tool is for a single ticket at a time and should not be used in bulk. It provides clear context for when to use versus alternatives, though it could explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for a specific attachment, use get_ticket_attachment).

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