bookstack_attachments_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool returns, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether this is a safe read operation, permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The description is functional but lacks transparency about how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about return format, error handling, or authentication requirements to be fully complete for agent use.

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% with one documented parameter ('Attachment ID to retrieve'), so the schema already provides complete parameter information. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific attachment'), including key outputs like 'download URL and metadata'. It distinguishes from the list tool by focusing on a single attachment, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read operations like books_read or pages_read.

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 implies usage when needing attachment details for a known ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like bookstack_attachments_list or other read tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.

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