teamstorm_get_attachments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the useful detail that no files are downloaded, which clarifies the tool's non-destructive, metadata-only nature. It does not contradict the annotations and provides extra context beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the key distinction (no download). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format details are not needed. With one self-descriptive parameter and a clear purpose, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether attachments are returned in a list or if there are any filters, but this is not critical for a metadata getter.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the task_key parameter. It does not mention task_key at all. While the name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value for the parameter, leaving the agent without any hints about format, meaning, or constraints beyond the schema's type.

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 specific action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('attachment metadata') and adds a distinguishing detail ('without downloading files'). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_comments and get_links, so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'without downloading files' implies a usage boundary (metadata only vs. file download), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool over others. It relies on the agent inferring from the resource name, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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