get_entity_attachment

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description usefully clarifies that it returns metadata rather than the file itself, which is a real behavioral distinction from the download sibling, but it says nothing about what metadata is returned, whether an attachment can be missing, or any access constraints.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope appear immediately.

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 lookup the description covers the essential action, but with no output schema the description is the only place return values could be characterized and it never says what 'metadata' includes. Two of three parameters are also undocumented anywhere, leaving an agent to guess ID formats.

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 only 33%: entityId and attachmentId carry no schema description at all. The description merely repeats the three entity types already enumerated in the schema for entityType, and adds nothing about entityId format or the fact that attachmentId accepts a string or number, so it fails to 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 ('Get metadata of one file attached to a project, portfolio or goal'), and the word 'metadata' separates it from the download_entity_attachment sibling that fetches file content. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative tools (list_entity_attachments, download_entity_attachment), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need information about a single already-known attachment. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_entity_attachments (to discover attachments) or download_entity_attachment (to fetch bytes), and no mention of prerequisites such as needing IDs from a listing call.

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