weeek_get_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns metadata and a download URL, but doesn't disclose whether this is a pure read operation with no side effects, whether authentication or specific permissions are required, or what happens if the file_id is invalid or unauthorized. Given zero annotation coverage, more transparency is expected.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource. The brevity is appropriate given the tool's simple single-parameter interface.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. Given the absence of both, the description should at least describe what the returned metadata contains or how the download URL is used. Instead it stops at the bare minimum. It is functional but leaves the agent without clarity on return format or follow-up usage of the download URL.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'file id' as the input. The input schema only provides the parameter name 'file_id' with type string and no helper text. The description does not clarify the format or origin of the file_id (e.g., whether it comes from a list attachments call), leaving the agent to infer the meaning from the name alone. This is the minimum needed to use the tool, but no value is added 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 clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('one attachment'), and specifies it returns metadata and download URL by file id. It distinguishes itself from weeek_upload_attachment (which does the opposite operation) and from list-type tools. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings, relying on the name (weeek_get_attachment) to carry differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it requires a prior upload or list call to obtain the file_id, nor does it contrast with weeek_upload_attachment or other attachment-related operations. Context for obtaining the file_id parameter is entirely absent.

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