get_journal_attachment

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

The description confirms the read-only nature consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about returning 'details about any files attached,' which complements the annotation. No contradictions or omissions found.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides a brief elaboration. Highly concise.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read tool with full schema coverage, but it does not specify what 'details' are returned (e.g., file name, size, type). Given no output schema, adding return field examples would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 states the tool retrieves attachment information for a journal entry, with a verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('attachment information for a journal entry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_journal_attachment and delete_journal_attachment by implying a read-only operation.

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 implies usage for reading attachment details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_journal_attachment, delete_journal_attachment, or get_invoice_attachment). No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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