List an owned task's attachments: id, filename, content_type, byte_size, and created_at for each file (never the bytes). Use to confirm what the worker can currently download.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The owned task whose attachments you want listed. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | No | ||
| attachments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / task_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The owned task whose attachments you want listed."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "attachments": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Attachments"
+ },
+ "task_id": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Task Id"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "TaskAttachmentsOut",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints, so the description adds beyond that by stating it returns only metadata and never the bytes. It also adds the ownership constraint ('owned task's attachments'), which is useful behavioral context.
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 two sentences with no filler: it front-loads the action, lists the fields, clarifies the exclusions, and gives the intended use case. Every part 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?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it will get, what it will not get, and how to use the result. Nothing essential is missing.
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 task_id parameter already has a clear description. The tool description reinforces that the task must be owned but adds no new parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List an owned task's attachments,' and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, filename, content_type, byte_size, created_at). The explicit 'never the bytes' qualifier also distinguishes this listing tool from download/proof-related siblings.
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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to confirm what the worker can currently download.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.