get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: image content is returned for display, path and unreferenced-blob access are impossible, large images are refused rather than truncated, and a host-configured outbox may return delivery_path and delivery_marker. It does not cover auth requirements or error behavior for missing entries.

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 content is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints, usage, and edge behavior. Sentences are informative and mostly earn their place, though the outbox and large-image details make it slightly dense for a two-parameter getter.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, constraints, and edge behavior. It remains incomplete on explicit id parameter meaning and error conditions, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains attachment_id as coming from the entry's own attachments and clarifies the entry-based relationship, but it does not explicitly explain the id parameter beyond 'that entry'. The schema patterns provide format constraints, but semantic meaning is only partially described.

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 and resource: 'Return one image already attached to an entry, as image content the channel can display.' It distinguishes this from path-based file access and unreferenced blobs, which helps an agent separate it from siblings like add_attachment or get_entry.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Use it when the user asks to see a photo that is stored.' It also implies when not to use it by stating it cannot address files by path. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe exclusion scenarios beyond that constraint.

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