sbis_get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions HTTP method and the includeContent parameter effect, but lacks details on error handling, response format, URL expiration, or size limits beyond what is in the schema.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, every part earns its place.

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 is incomplete: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., binary file, base64 string, or something else), the response structure, or that the URL is temporary. Given no output schema, this omission is significant for an attachment download tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description clarifies that the URL comes from read_document and that includeContent=true yields base64, adding marginal value over the schema. No significant new semantics are provided.

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 action (download), resource (attachment), and source (temporary URL from read_document). It also specifies HTTP method (GET) and authentication (no sid), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 the tool should be used after read_document to obtain the temporary URL, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Usage context is inferred but not fully articulated.

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