Get Attachment Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that text files return the actual file content while binary files return only metadata and a download URL, which is a significant nuance for agent expectations. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful detail beyond them.

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 exceptionally concise and well-organized into Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every sentence provides necessary information, with no filler or redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the note about list_attachments is directly actionable.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential context: how to obtain the sys_id, what output to expect for text vs. binary files, and the available response_format options. Combined with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the full schema, there are no major gaps in what an agent needs to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds a crucial semantic detail for sys_id by specifying that it comes from servicenow_list_attachments, which is not in the schema. It also restates response_format's role, though at a higher level than the schema's enum description. This extra provenance guidance elevates the score above the baseline of 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 opens with 'Download the content of a file attachment by its sys_id', which clearly identifies the action (download), the resource (file attachment content), and the input (sys_id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like servicenow_list_attachments (which lists metadata) and servicenow_upload_attachment (which uploads), so the purpose is 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use servicenow_list_attachments first to find the sys_id of the attachment.' It also explains behavior for binary vs. text files, which is an implicit when/why to use caution. However, it does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools for downloading binary files or state when this tool should not be used, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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