Get Attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't say whether the call is read-only (implied by 'Retrieve' but not stated), what happens with an invalid or inaccessible id, or whether any access constraints apply. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin, though the read-only nature of a getter is fairly self-evident.

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 short sentence with the verb and identifier front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the guidance gaps noted elsewhere.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and the tool has only one fully documented parameter. What remains missing is minor behavioral context (failure modes, auth), acceptable for a simple 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 100% for the single attachment_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, naming convention, or source-of-id detail beyond what structured data provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single attachment'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_attachments. However, it never names that sibling or any retrieval scope (e.g., ownership/permissions), so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, list_attachments. The agent must infer that this is the tool for fetching one attachment when the id is already known.

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