Get an event attachment

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the response is raw bytes (not JSON), text files are included, and attachmentId is a file name. This materially changes how an agent should handle the response.

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?

A compact set of short, information-dense statements, with the response-format caveat placed early. The reference link adds optional depth without bloating the definition.

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-only GET, the description covers the key operational facts: exact route, non-JSON output, file-name semantics, and no request body. It would be slightly stronger with error/status expectations, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

With only the query object described in the schema, the description partially compensates by explaining that attachmentId is a file name and that there are no body fields. However, it does not elaborate on eventId semantics or path-parameter formatting beyond the endpoint template.

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?

States a clear action and target ('Get an event attachment') and pins it to the exact endpoint GET /api/xm/1/events/{eventId}/attachments/{attachmentId}. This distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools (scenario, scheduled message) by resource type.

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 choose this tool over related attachment fetchers or upload tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusion cases. The intended context must be inferred from the name and endpoint.

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