get-attachment-metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-schema context: the return is metadata only, timestamps are ISO-8601, and the creator shape is described. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., missing file/task) or permissions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and required parameters, but the 'Returns' line and the 'Response Fields' list largely duplicate each other, and the example JSON adds little beyond the schema's required-field list. Useful, but roughly a third of the text does not earn 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so item by item (id, name, size, mimeType, createdAt, creator). Combined with the input sourcing hints, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by clarifying that taskId is a post ID and that fileId must be sourced from get-attachment-list, which the schema alone does not convey. The example payload also demonstrates the three required IDs in context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get metadata of a specific file attachment) scoped to a Dooray task. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns metadata only and pointing to download-attachment for content, so an agent can differentiate it from get-attachment-list without opening either schema.

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 tells you where to get fileId (get-attachment-list) and names the explicit alternative for retrieving file content (download-attachment), including the condition that separates the two. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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