get_attachment_content

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully explains behavior: it returns text or base64 encoding based on file type, and includes encoding type and MIME type. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the core behavior is 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 convey purpose, behavior for different file types, and response attributes. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior. It explains the different handling of file types and the response structure, though it could mention potential size limitations or pagination if applicable.

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% for the only parameter 'attachmentId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets baseline expectations.

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 fetches attachment content, distinguishes behavior for text vs binary files, and explains response format. It differentiates from the sibling 'get_attachment_download_url' by focusing on content retrieval rather than a download URL.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to get attachment content. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_attachment_download_url', nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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