sn_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the three operations but does not describe potential side effects (e.g., upload overwriting, download requiring specific permissions), authentication requirements, or error handling. This is a notable gap for a tool that includes a mutating action (upload).

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the three operations. Every word earns its place with no redundant detail.

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?

The description provides a high-level overview but does not explain which parameters are needed for each action (e.g., table and sys_id for list/upload vs attachment_sys_id for download). With 7 parameters and no output schema, additional context on action-parameter mapping and return values would improve completeness, though the schema partially covers this.

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 schema already documents each parameter's purpose and which are required for specific actions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the operation names, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Manage attachments on ServiceNow records. List, download, or upload attachments.' clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('attachments'), and it enumerates the three distinct operations. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on other record operations like querying or creating records.

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 clear context that this tool is for attachment operations (list, download, upload), which implies when to use it versus sibling tools focused on other aspects of ServiceNow records. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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