autotask_get_ticket_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the endpoint behavior (top-level vs. child), data stripping with dataOmittedReason, size limits (3 MB raw, 4 MB base64, ~1 MB client limit), and the effect of maxInlineBase64Bytes. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 concise yet information-dense. Every sentence adds value: purpose, two modes, verification, size behavior, and parameter guidance. There is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return behavior (metadata only vs. base64 data, data stripping with reason), edge cases (oversized binaries), and parameter semantics. It is complete for a retrieval tool with size constraints.

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 100%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the exact behavior of includeData, the endpoint used, the purpose of maxInlineBase64Bytes with a warning, and that ticketId ensures attachment belongs to that ticket. All parameters are well-documented.

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 'Get a ticket attachment' and explains the two modes (metadata only vs. with data). It also mentions verification to belong to ticketId, which distinguishes it from the sibling search tool that lists attachments. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context on when to use includeData=false vs. true, including performance and size considerations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though given the sibling tools are mostly create/update/search, the guidance is sufficient.

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