list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all attachments on a page' without mentioning return format, pagination, read-only semantics, or whether it includes images or only file attachments. This is a significant gap for a listing tool.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the 'Args' section simply restates the schema parameter without added detail. It is concise but not well-structured, as the redundant arg documentation wastes space.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as what counts as an attachment, how it relates to sibling tools, and when it should be used. The tool is too underspecified for reliable invocation by an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only repeats 'page_id: The page ID,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's field title 'Page Id.' No format, source, or usage details are provided.

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 'List all attachments on a page,' which identifies the verb (list), the resource (attachments), and the scope (on a page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_attachment, upload_attachment, and list_page_images.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_page_images or download_attachment. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred or excluded.

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