items_attachment_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get metadata' correctly implies a read-only operation and clarifies that attachment content is not returned, but it does not describe response shape, error behavior, or any other side effects.

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 eight words with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every word 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only two UUID parameters, so the description covers the basic invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what metadata fields are returned and provides no error or availability context, leaving a clear gap.

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 only 50%: 'id' is documented as a Homebox item UUID, but 'attachmentId' has no schema description and the tool description does not clarify it. The phrase 'single item attachment' hints that one parameter identifies the item and the other identifies the attachment, but the mapping is left to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a single item attachment'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like items_get and items_list by attachment scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling names, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as items_get or items_path. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the self-evident 'get metadata' use case.

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