thincms_get_lesson_attachment_url

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by noting the tool returns a URL path (not full URL) requiring base URL appending. However, it does not confirm the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), lacks idempotency or safety guarantees, and omits potential failures like missing attachment.

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, zero wasted words. The purpose and result format are clearly stated upfront, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and usage: it explains that the result is a URL path to be appended to a base URL. This is sufficient for an agent to use the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions the required parameters without elaborating on format or constraints not already in the schema descriptions.

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 retrieves a download URL for a lesson attachment, using the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'lesson attachment'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like thincms_upload_lesson_attachment and thincms_delete_lesson_attachment by focusing on retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as thincms_get_lesson for attachment metadata or other attachment operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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