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. It discloses the retrieval behavior and the base64 encoding, but it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, size limitations, or response structure. For a read-only retrieval tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 minimal and focused: one clear sentence defining the operation, followed by a short, relevant parameter note. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key operational detail (base64 encoding) and parameter origin. It does not explain what the returned object looks like, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that in the description.

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%, but the description adds valuable meaning by explaining where attachment_id originates (`from get_message`). This goes beyond the schema's bare integer type and helps the agent source the correct identifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve an attachment's bytes' with the encoding detail (base64). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message, which retrieves message metadata rather than binary content.

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?

It specifies that the attachment_id comes from `get_message`, which gives clear contextual guidance on how this tool fits into a workflow. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the associated source of the ID is a strong usage signal.

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