get_attachment_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them: it does not say what happens when the id is unknown, whether remote/large attachments are resolved, or anything about latency or size limits. Its only added value is naming the returned fields, which is modest.

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?

Extremely short with zero filler, and the field list is front-loaded. The fragmentary style (no subject or verb) makes it slightly less actionable than a single well-formed sentence would be.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of return information and it does list the fields, which is helpful for a one-parameter read tool. It nonetheless omits any indication of return shape (object vs. flat), error behavior for missing attachments, or fallback fields that may be null.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Attachment UUID"), so the schema fully documents it. The description does not mention the id or its UUID format, which is acceptable given the coverage but adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 is a noun-phrase field list ("Attachment metadata: name, type, size, author, dates") with no verb, so the action (retrieve) is only implied by the tool name. The enumerated fields do help distinguish it from get_attachment, which presumably returns the file itself, but an agent must infer that contrast rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_attachment or the various get_test_result_attachment siblings, and no preconditions. The agent is left to infer that this is the lightweight metadata-only read.

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