get_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns file paths that can be read or saved, and that filtering by mime type is supported. This adds meaningful context beyond a bare 'get attachments' statement, though it does not detail pagination, error conditions, or the relationship between contact and chat_guid.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: the primary action, the filtering capability, and the return format. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of purpose, filtering, and return type. It could be improved by explaining how to specify a conversation (contact vs chat_guid) and mentioning the default limit, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already explain each field. The tool description adds little beyond repeating the mime_filter example and mentions return behavior (file paths). It does not explain the distinction between contact and chat_guid or the default limit, but the schema covers these adequately.

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 attachments (images, files, links) from a conversation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_messages and get_conversations. It uses a specific verb and resource (get attachments from a conversation) and gives concrete examples of attachment types.

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 attachments and provides filter examples, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_messages for text content. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when attachments are needed.

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