Get Attachment

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

The annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds important operational details: the download link expires after 10 minutes and a small text file up to 256 KB is included. These are useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations, though authentication or failure behavior is not 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 two short sentences, front-loads the returned details, and immediately follows with the time-limited download link. There is no wasted text.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key runtime behavior an agent needs: the temporary download link and small text file return. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the sole parameter is documented in the schema as an attachment id sourced from list_attachments or a page body. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as an attachment uploaded to a page and states that it returns details plus a download link. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_attachments or create_upload_link, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mention of a download link and returned text file implies the tool is used when an agent needs attachment details or temporary download access. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives like list_attachments.

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