get_case_attachments

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It details the metadata returned (file details, URLs, actions) and explains optional thumbnail retrieval with base64 encoding. It could mention read-only nature, but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose and key details. No redundant information, front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: return content, category filtering, thumbnail option. It does not explain sessionCredentials in description (covered by schema), nor address pagination, but is largely complete for a list-retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds value by elaborating on the thumbnail parameter (e.g., file types, base64) beyond the schema. For caseID, it does not add much, but overall enhances understanding.

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's function: 'Get a comprehensive list of all attachments associated with a specific Pega case.' It specifies the resource (attachments for a case) and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_attachment' (single attachment) and 'add_case_attachments'.

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 mentions that only attachments from selected categories are returned, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'get_attachment' or provide when-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied but not clearly outlined.

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