wrike_list_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action without revealing behavioral traits like pagination, whether one of taskId/folderId/commentId is required, or return structure. This leaves the agent under-informed about how the tool behaves beyond its name.

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 concise sentence that accurately captures the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully explain the tool's behavior. It does not clarify the relationship between the optional parameters (e.g., whether exactly one of taskId/folderId/commentId is required) or mention pagination or return format, leaving important context 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all six parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action (list), resource (attachments), and the valid scopes (task, folder, comment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wrike_download_attachment, wrike_get_attachment, wrike_update_attachment, and wrike_delete_attachment by focusing on listing only.

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 implies usage through its action and resource, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as downloading or previewing an attachment. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage is only implied.

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