Get All Attachments For Equipment (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds pagination details, required parameters, and the API endpoint. However, it incorrectly states the return type as Equipment records instead of attachments, which undermines trust. No critical behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise but contains redundant and contradictory statements. It could be streamlined to focus solely on attachments and avoid confusing references to equipment records.

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 output schema, the description should clearly state the return format (attachments array with fields). Instead, it incorrectly states Equipment records. It does not explain pagination metadata or the structure of attachment objects, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 each parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates that page and per_page control pagination. Baseline score of 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 name and title clearly indicate this tool retrieves attachments for equipment in a project. However, the description contradicts itself by stating 'fetch the full details of a specific Equipment records' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Equipment records', which suggests a different purpose. This ambiguity reduces clarity.

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 a misleading usage statement ('fetch the full details of a specific Equipment records') that does not match the tool's actual function. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_all_attachments_for_equipment_company' or provide context on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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