Show Attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavioral context: default values for company_id/project_id, the need for existing parent records, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). These go well beyond the annotations.

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 thorough yet well-structured: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, side-effect note, error behavior, required params, and API reference. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important facts (what it returns, when to use) are front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 all critical aspects: what it returns (single JSON object), the resource hierarchy, configuration defaults, error handling, and the API endpoint. Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety hints, this description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extras: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and asset_id/attachment_id must identify existing records. It also lists required parameters and the endpoint structure, aiding correct invocation 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a specific attachment by its identifier.' It clearly distinguishes from list/create/update tools by emphasizing a single attachment and full field set. The read-only nature and the exact endpoint further reinforce the 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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use this when you already know which attachment you want and need its full field set.' It also tells the agent to resolve parent records with 'the matching list tool first.' However, it does not name a specific alternative tool (e.g., list_attachments_project) or state when not to use it, falling just short of the highest bar.

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