read_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core behavioral trait that PDFs become text while images and HWP return links only. However, it omits truncation behavior tied to max_chars, handling of unsupported formats, and any error/failure semantics for unreachable URLs.

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 with zero waste; the format-support constraint is front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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-value explanation isn't needed, and the format caveat is covered. Still, for a two-parameter extraction tool, the undocumented max_chars truncation and incomplete format coverage (no mention of DOCX, TXT, etc.) leave gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 must compensate, but it says nothing about either parameter. In particular, max_chars (default 15000) drives output truncation and is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent unaware that long PDFs may be cut off.

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 (read) and resource (Ulsan University site attachments) and names the format scope (PDF). It also clarifies the fallback for images/HWP, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling tool overlaps with attachment reading, so explicit differentiation isn't required.

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 implied: use this to convert a PDF attachment linked from a notice/detail page into text. There is no explicit statement about when not to call it (e.g., for HWP/images, which only return links) or about prerequisites such as the URL needing to come from a prior tool result.

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