Get a scenario attachment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it warns that the response is raw bytes (not JSON) including text files, explains that attachmentId is a file name, and states there are no body fields. This prevents common errors in response parsing and parameter handling.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose. Each sentence adds useful operational detail (endpoint, response format, attachmentId semantics, body fields), though the reference URL is somewhat redundant given the endpoint and description. No wasted words overall.

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 GET operation, the description covers the most critical non-obvious details: non-JSON binary response and attachmentId as filename. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or relation to sibling attachment tools. With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return type, which it does, but other operational context is missing.

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?

The schema only provides types and minLength for scenarioId and attachmentId, with no per-property descriptions. The description only clarifies attachmentId's meaning ('a file name'); scenarioId is left unexplained. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates, so the agent must still infer the role of scenarioId from the endpoint pattern.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a scenario attachment') and includes the exact endpoint, making its purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from the broader attachment set by name and endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like xmatters_get_an_event_attachment or xmatters_upload_attachment_to_a_scenario.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and endpoint alone; the description provides no decision support for choosing among the numerous attachment-related and scenario-related siblings.

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