Get Zendesk Ticket Attachments

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

The description reveals an important behavior: images are embedded inline while other files are listed as text references. This goes beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, giving the agent insight into the response format. However, it does not cover potential error conditions, rate limits, or pagination, so it is not fully transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds essential detail without fluff. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 description, combined with the schema, provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The action is clear, parameters are fully described, and the output format is partially explained. Minor gaps remain, such as the exact meaning of 'text references' and any pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The parameter descriptions in the schema are comprehensive (100% coverage), explaining the purpose and origin of each parameter, including the behavior when attachment_ids is omitted. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific action 'Retrieve ticket attachments' with a clear verb and resource, and adds detail about the output format (images vs. text references). It is immediately obvious what this tool does, and it is distinct from sibling tools that focus on tickets, comments, or searches.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this should be preferred over get_ticket or list_ticket_comments, nor does it specify conditions that would make it unsuitable. The only implicit hint is the focus on attachments, but this is not explicit enough for an agent to make a selection decision.

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