Get attachment metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (filename, size, content type, download URL), which matters here because no output schema exists. It still omits error behavior and whether the download URL is authenticated or expiring.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor deduction for the awkward phrasing 'Returns one attachment metadata', which reads clumsily but does not obscure meaning.

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 trivial one-parameter read tool, the combination of schema, annotations and the enumerated return fields covers nearly everything an agent needs. What is missing is how to source the id and any failure mode, both minor for this tool class.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'id'. The description adds nothing about where to obtain the id (e.g., from a file listing) or its format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: returns metadata for a single attachment, and enumerates the fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like files_download (content) and files_list_project_files (list), but never names those distinctions explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, even though files_download is an obvious sibling an agent could confuse this with. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the metadata-only call.

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