Show Attachment

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It also discloses error behavior with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, plus the company_id default behavior. This adds valuable context not available in annotations alone.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds essential usage details. Every sentence adds value — from the main action, to default behavior, to error semantics, to endpoint reference. It is thorough without being bloated.

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 covers the full context an agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, how to resolve prerequisites, the default behavior, error responses, required parameters, and even the API endpoint. For a read tool with no output schema, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, and that asset_id/attachment_id must reference existing parent records. However, there is a slight contradiction: it says company_id defaults when omitted yet lists it as required, which could confuse agents.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Returns a specific attachment by its identifier.' It specifies the resource (attachment), the scope (by identifier), and the return value ('full field set'). It also distinguishes itself from list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which attachment you want,' which separates it from the many sibling list tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which attachment you want.' It provides an alternative path: 'resolve them with the matching list tool first' when IDs are unknown. Also explains the default for company_id via procore_set_config, giving clear decision context for whether the agent needs to supply it.

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