get_inventory_product_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the requirement that attachmentId belongs to the product, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently describes the operation's scope (one specific attachment of an inventory product) and the necessary condition for attachmentId. It is complete for a simple get 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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema constraint for attachmentId without adding new semantic meaning. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 it retrieves one file attached directly to an inventory product, using the verb 'Get' and specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_inventory_product_attachments' which lists multiple 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 provides a constraint ('attachmentId must belong to the resolved product') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_attachment' or how to disambiguate when multiple attachments exist. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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