list_email_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The GET verb and 'List' wording imply a read-only operation, but the description does not state what the response contains, whether pagination exists, or what happens when the email has no attachments. Adequate but minimal.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes the endpoint and the key scoping detail ('sent email') without wasting words.

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 one-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the core call is clear. However, the description does not explain what the returned attachment list contains or how it relates to get_email_attachment, so an agent cannot fully predict the result.

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 covers 100% of parameters but only describes id as 'The email id.' The tool description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the id is the sent email's id and mapping it to the endpoint path /emails/:id/attachments.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('a sent email's attachments'), and the exact endpoint (GET /emails/:id/attachments). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_received_email_attachments and get_email_attachment.

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 'sent email's attachments' wording implies this is for sent emails rather than received ones, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus list_received_email_attachments or get_email_attachment. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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