get_attachment_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the return fields (total_chars, next_offset, absence of next_offset at the end) and adds an explicit prompt-injection warning that attachment text and metadata are untrusted data, not instructions. It omits permission requirements and failure behavior for missing/binary attachments.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and pagination, followed by the security caveat. No filler and every clause adds information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains return values and pagination termination, and it flags the trust boundary. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail (id/filename, units, defaults) for a tool with four undocumented parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does partially by implying offset/length pagination through 'slice' and next_offset. However, it never explains what id and filename denote, the defaults (8000, 0), or that length/offset are measured in characters, leaving half the parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a slice of one attachment's text') and explicitly positions the tool relative to get_item for documents longer than that tool shows. An agent can distinguish it from get_attachment_image and get_item immediately.

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?

Names the alternative (get_item) and the condition that selects this tool (longer documents), plus implies pagination via next_offset. It does not state the negative case for time periods beyond pagination or clarify when to prefer get_attachment_image, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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