get_attachment_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only nature and includes embed/link syntax in the output, but it does not explain what other details are returned, error handling, or any prerequisites. The description adds some context beyond the tool name but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the purpose and a key output detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves gaps: it does not specify the full set of returned information, potential edge cases, or how the attachment path is resolved. The embed/link syntax note is helpful, but the vague 'detailed information' is incomplete.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'path' with 'Path to the attachment file,' achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add further semantic meaning, such as path format or vault relationship, so it provides no extra value 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('an attachment'), with a specific output detail ('embed/link syntax'). This distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools like list_attachments and get_attachments_in_note.

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 it is used for retrieving details on a specific attachment via a path, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_attachments or get_attachments_in_note. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, making the usage context only implicit.

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