aula_view_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral transparency. It discloses return format (base64/text), the 1MB MCP response limit, the ~750KB failure threshold, and fallback behavior for large files. This is rich operational context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three focused sentences: primary action, explicit usage condition, and critical warning/fallback. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, constraints, failure modes, and alternative action. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without further clarification.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: explains that local_path comes from a previous response and clarifies why max_size_mb defaults to 0.75MB to stay under the MCP limit. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 loads and views a previously downloaded attachment, returning file content as base64 or text. The phrase 'previously downloaded' distinguishes this from sibling aula_get_attachment, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'ONLY call this when the user explicitly asks to view/see/analyze an attachment,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also provides a concrete alternative for large files (S3 URL or local file path), effectively stating when not to use the tool.

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