getAttachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what format the attachment is returned in, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is too basic to inform the agent about how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an attachment is in this system, how to use the IDs, what the tool returns, or any error handling. For a tool with multiple required identifiers and no structured documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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%, meaning none of the three required parameters (attachment_id, inbox_id, message_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what these IDs are, how to obtain them, or their relationships. This leaves parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Get attachment by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (attachment), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves metadata, content, or both, nor does it mention what an 'attachment' represents in this context.

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 alternatives. With sibling tools like getMessage and getThread, it's unclear if attachments are accessible through those tools or if this is the exclusive method. No prerequisites or context about required IDs are mentioned.

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