Read Page Attachment

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details content handling (images as native blocks, text as text, else base64) and refusal conditions. This adds substantial transparency about behavior, without contradicting the annotations.

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 informative but somewhat verbose, with multiple clauses and parentheticals. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be trimmed slightly without losing essential details.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (content into the conversation) and covers failure modes (size limits). It does not mention error handling for missing files, but that is not strictly required and the description is otherwise complete.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (file_id, page_id, slug) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so it does not improve parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Yandex Wiki page attachment's content', and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like page_download_attachment by saying to use that for saving locally. It also clarifies that nothing is saved, aligning with the read-only nature.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for images and text within size limits) and when not to (refuses non-image over 128 KiB, images over 2 MiB). It also points to alternatives (page_download_attachment for saving, page_get_attachments for download URL), giving clear guidance.

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