Get an attachment file path

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a non-destructive profile, the description goes further by explaining that it resolves both linked and imported attachments and that passing a regular item key yields paths for all file attachments. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss edge cases like missing local files.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior, the second adds scope (linked/imported and parent items), and the third gives a concrete use case. Everything earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a safe read operation with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description covers purpose, parameter behavior, attachment-type handling, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both itemKey and groupId thoroughly. The description still adds value by clarifying that itemKey may be an attachment key or a parent item key and that parent keys resolve to all file attachment paths, which is semantic information not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('resolve'), a specific resource ('an attachment'), and a concrete outcome ('absolute path on this machine'). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly tying the use case to reading PDFs whose text Zotero has not indexed, and by covering both linked and imported attachments as well as parent-item behavior.

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 gives an explicit invocation condition: 'Use this to read a PDF whose text Zotero has not indexed.' This tells an agent when this tool is the right choice versus fulltext-based retrieval. It does not explicitly name an alternative or list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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