Get All Attachments For Equipment (Company)

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

The description adds that results are paginated and returns pagination metadata, which is not in annotations. It also includes the exact endpoint. However, the description is misleading about the return type (equipment vs attachments). Annotations already convey read-only safety.

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 moderately sized but contains contradictory statements (equipment vs attachments) and redundant information. It could be more concise and accurate.

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 tool lacks an output schema, and the description fails to explain the structure of the returned attachments or pagination metadata. The misstatement about returning 'Equipment records' instead of attachments significantly undermines completeness. For a paginated list resource, more detail is needed.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description minimally restates required parameters and adds endpoint context but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get all attachments for equipment (Company)' but then says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Equipment records by its identifier,' which contradicts the tool name and schema. The return type is misidentified as 'Equipment records' instead of attachment records. This inconsistency confuses the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_all_attachments_for_equipment_project' or when to use it over other attachment-related tools. The description only lists required parameters but lacks decision context.

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