Get attachment full text

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: text comes from Zotero's own index, only indexed attachments are covered, the first indexed attachment of a parent item is used, and long documents can be truncated. This is useful context that annotations alone do not 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining fallback behavior, data availability, and truncation. It is compact yet complete, with no redundant filler.

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 readOnly annotations, full schema coverage for all parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects an agent needs: what the tool returns, how item keys behave, the indexing constraint, and truncation. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents itemKey, groupId, and maxCharacters clearly. The description reinforces several of these meanings but does not add substantial new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the indexed full text of an attachment.' It also clarifies the fallback behavior with regular item keys, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and helping distinguish it from related tools like zotero_get_attachment_path.

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 clear usage context: it explains how to use an attachment key or a parent item key, and it explicitly notes that full text is available only for attachments Zotero has indexed. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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