autotask_get_ticket_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves an attachment, but does not disclose whether it's read-only, if there are permission requirements, or side effects. The default behavior of 'includeData' is noted, but overall behavioral context is limited.

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 sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 3 parameters, schema covers all, and no output schema. The description is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool. Minor improvement could mention that data is returned as attachment metadata plus optional base64 data.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves a specific ticket attachment by ticket ID and attachment ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'ticket attachment' are precise. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'autotask_create_ticket_attachment' and 'autotask_search_ticket_attachments'.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single attachment given ticket and attachment IDs, but no guidance on when to use this vs. searching for attachments or creating them. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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