get_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'metadata' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify whether the attachment content is included, what metadata fields are returned, whether any side effects occur, or whether authentication is required. This is a minimal hint rather than transparent behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is appropriate conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description is adequate at a baseline level. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description should at least clarify that the id is an attachment id from list_attachments and what 'metadata' includes. These gaps leave an agent partially guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, 'id', is not explained; the description infers through the tool name that id refers to an attachment identifier, but it does not specify where the value comes from or any format/type details beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('attachment metadata'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list/upload/delete attachment tools. It names what the tool returns (metadata rather than the file itself), though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention that it operates on a single attachment by id.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_attachments (to discover attachment ids), upload_attachment (to create), or delete_attachment. There is no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining an id from list_attachments or of when metadata retrieval is appropriate.

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