read_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read. The description adds that content is size-capped, which alerts the agent to potential truncation. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and key behavioral trait.

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 simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, return type, and a behavioral cap. However, it omits any mention of error conditions or permissions.

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 coverage is 0% with no descriptions. The description does not explain the parameters individually (attachment_id, include_data, instance). It only gives an overall purpose, failing to clarify the role of include_data or instance.

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 verb 'Read', the specific resource 'ir.attachment', and what is returned: metadata and size-capped base64 content. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_record' by specifying the attachment context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or related tools from the sibling list, such as 'read_record'.

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