Get Attachment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that images return as `image` blocks, audio as `audio` blocks, others as base64 `resource`, and that attachments must be inside the vault. It also specifies the 5 MB default cap with maxBytes up to 50 MB. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return types and size limit, and exclusions with alternatives. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's binary file reading nature, the description covers return formats, size limits, vault scope, and file type restrictions. With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect. It also cross-references sibling tools for completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about maxBytes' default (5,242,880 bytes) and hard cap, and explains that path is vault-relative. While it doesn't add much for path, the description of how maxBytes affects the behavior (raising cap) provides marginal added value, justifying a 4.

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 reads and returns attachment bytes, specifies the return types (image, audio, resource), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that .md, .canvas, and .base files are rejected and should use get_note, read_canvas, or read_base instead.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: for binary attachments, not for text-format files. It mentions the default 5 MB cap and how to raise it via maxBytes, and suggests alternative tools for rejected file types.

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