get_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no additional context is given about error handling, auth requirements, or whether it returns metadata or file content. The description is minimally adequate but lacks deeper transparency.

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 concise sentence with no redundant content. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 simple getter with one parameter, the description is functional but minimal. It does not reference sibling tools or error behavior, though an output schema exists and might cover return details. The text alone leaves some context gaps, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'attachment_id' with no description. The description's phrase 'by id' confirms that this parameter is the identifier to look up, adding slight clarity. However, it does not explain the scope or format of the ID, though the parameter name itself is self-explanatory. Given 0% schema coverage, the description provides only baseline compensation.

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 retrieves a single attachment by its ID. The verb 'Get' specifies the action, 'attachment' is the resource, and 'single by id' differentiates it from list operations among siblings. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_work_package_attachments or list_work_package_file_links. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter.

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