read_attachment_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key behavioral trait: it reads text without persisting ('without saving it'), and it flags the cross-tool constraint that download_attachment only works on a local server. It does not say what happens when an unsupported type is passed (error vs. empty), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the format rules and the fallback tool. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and sibling routing is handled well. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still lacks guidance on index/max_chars semantics and error behavior for unsupported types.

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 0% and all four parameters (message_id, filename, index, max_chars) are undocumented in both schema and description. The format list loosely relates to filename, but index and the 20000 default for max_chars are never explained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return the text of an attachment') plus a distinguishing trait ('without saving it') that separates it from download_attachment. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus its siblings.

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?

Explicitly lists supported formats (PDF, docx, xlsx, pptx, txt, csv, json, xml, html, md) and names the alternative for unsupported types: 'use download_attachment (local server only)'. This is a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative directive.

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