Fetch Attachment By Id (Project)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds little beyond stating the return format ('JSON object'). It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't provide meaningful behavioral context such as scope or side effects.

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 includes unnecessary details like the API version and endpoint path ('Procore API (v2.0): Core > Equipment. Endpoint: GET /rest/v2.0/...'), which adds clutter. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

The description does not explain the optional page/per_page parameters or the pagination behavior. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context about the response. The confusion between equipment and attachment also reduces completeness.

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% with well-described parameters. The description mentions the four required parameters but does not add semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Fetch attachment by Id (Project)' but then says it fetches 'the full details of a specific Equipment records', which is inconsistent and misleading. The tool name and title indicate an attachment, but the description references equipment records, causing confusion about the actual resource.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists required parameters but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_attachment_by_id_company' or 'list_all_attachments'. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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