hires_list_application_attachments

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

The description discloses it returns file metadata and download URLs, providing some insight into the response behavior. However, there is no mention of error handling, authorization, pagination, or limits, and no annotations are provided to compensate.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the return value. Two short sentences with no unnecessary detail make it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks usage guidance or reference to related tools, but the essential information is present and sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter as 'Application ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool lists all file attachments linked to an application, with examples of attachment types (resumes, cover letters, documents) and specifies the return value (file metadata and download URLs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like download tools by indicating it lists metadata, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar list tools such as hires_list_candidate_files.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites or when to prefer this over similar tools like hires_download_attachment for retrieving files.

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