Get Wiki attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: the exact return fields (name, size, MIME type, download URL, preview flag, virus-check status) and a stability warning that Yandex does not document this operation and may change it.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return fields, the stability caveat, and the byte-fetch boundary. Four tight sentences with no filler; every line carries information an agent needs.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it flags the undocumented/volatile nature of the operation plus the metadata-only limitation. For a two-param single-resource get, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's endpoint template (GET /pages/{id}/attachments/{file_id}) loosely maps page_id and file_id to their roles but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Metadata of one attachment') and even names the underlying REST endpoint, making it unmistakably the singular counterpart to wiki_attachments_list. An agent can distinguish it from attach/delete/upload siblings without opening any schema.

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 establishes a clear scope boundary by stating that fetching the actual bytes ('download', 'preview') is CLI/SDK-only, so the agent knows this tool yields metadata only. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to wiki_attachments_list for enumeration or name other alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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