get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait — that images are returned visually viewable — but says nothing about non-image attachments, size limits, permissions, or failure behavior. A read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but never confirmed.

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, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the parameter-source hint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-value information. It covers the image case but leaves unclear what happens with non-image files, which is a meaningful gap for an attachment-retrieval tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by tying fileId to its origin in get_board's attachment list, which is genuinely useful for correct invocation. boardId and cardId semantics remain schema-only.

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 ('Get a file attached to a card') and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_board by naming it as the source of the fileId. An agent can immediately tell this retrieves a single attachment rather than board or card data.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required fileId comes from ('the card's attachments in get_board'), which is the key prerequisite for calling it. It gives clear usage context but no exclusions or error-case guidance.

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