card_attachment_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it does signal this is a read ('inspecting') and honestly notes that upload metadata is only present 'when Trello returns it,' which is useful conditional-return context. It says nothing about permissions, behavior for a missing/invalid attachment id, or whether fields affect the payload size.

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; the use-condition comes first and the conditional-return caveat follows. It could be marginally denser with one clause about return shape, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what comes back, and it only gestures at 'upload metadata when Trello returns it.' For a 3-parameter read tool it is adequate, but the caller still doesn't know the response shape or whether fields='all' materially changes cost.

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 cardId, attachmentId, and the fields parameter are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the attachment-id lookup and hints that responses can include upload metadata, but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 — inspecting a single existing card attachment by id — and scopes it to one item, which is distinguishable from the sibling card_attachments list tool. It stops short of naming that sibling as the fan-out alternative.

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 'Use when inspecting one existing card attachment by attachment id' clause gives a clear trigger condition for retrieval of a single attachment. It offers no explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer card_attachments for listing) but the context is unambiguous.

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