Read task attachment

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context that images may be returned as image content, which helps the agent anticipate response format. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The operation is stated first, and the important image-content behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 simple read operation with two required parameters and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance. It does not specify non-image return formats, but the lack of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature keep this gap minor.

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 both task_id and attachment_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting the attachment was previously listed, which is consistent with baseline expectations.

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 clearly states the tool reads one attachment from a task, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'previously listed on a task' narrows the scope and distinguishes it from broader query or listing tools.

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 context: use for one attachment that has already been listed on a task, implying prior retrieval of the task's attachments. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, but the tool is the only attachment-reading sibling, so guidance is adequate.

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