elog_get_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ({filename, content_b64, mime, size}) and advises embedding via MCP resource mechanisms, which is key behavioral context. It doesn't mention error conditions, authentication, or size limits, but for a simple read operation the core behavior is well-covered.

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 concise and well-structured with explicit 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema (per context), the description covers all necessary calling information: parameters, return format, and integration guidance. No additional details are needed for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'logbook' is explained as the name of the holding logbook, and 'filename' is specified as the exact name as listed on the entry. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 ('Download') and a concrete resource ('an attachment'), and specifies the output encoding ('as base64 content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like elog_get_entry or elog_search, which operate on entries or search results rather than binary attachments.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to retrieve an attachment by logbook and filename. It does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and matches the tool's name. Since no sibling tool offers attachment downloading, no additional routing guidance is necessary.

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