Get Attachments For Object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (gid, name, resource_subtype, created_at, host) and clarifying that download URLs are not included here, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact at two sentences, with the first stating the core function and return fields, and the second offering a relevant alternative. No redundant or superfluous information is present.

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 list-type tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and the primary alternative. However, it does not mention pagination or that 'all' attachments may require multiple pages, though the schema's limit/offset parameters imply this. Still, the description is largely complete for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, offset, parent, opt_fields) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('attachments on a task or project') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling asana_get_attachment by stating that the latter is for download URLs. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 direct usage guidance by pointing to asana_get_attachment as the alternative when a download URL is needed, implying this tool is for listing attachments rather than fetching a single attachment's URL. This is an explicit when-to-use vs. alternative instruction.

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