read_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must carry behavioral clarity. 'Read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, and the supported-types list plus the binary fallback directive reduce unexpected failures. It does not discuss details like error behavior or output size, but the core behavior is sufficiently 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?

The description is two short sentences that immediately state the action and scope, then provide the alternative for binary files. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential routing information and explicitly defines what the tool reads. Although there is no output schema and the return format isn't formally detailed, the phrase 'text content' adequately conveys the expected output for an agent.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond pointing out that the attachment should be a text-based file, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Read the text content of a text-based attachment inline.' It further clarifies scope by listing supported extensions and distinguishes itself from save_attachment, so an agent can easily recognize this as the inline text-reading tool.

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 explicit usage boundaries by enumerating supported text formats and explicitly directing binary files to 'Use save_attachment for binary files.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use the alternative.

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