list_event_occurrence_attachments

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that event_id is resolved to UUID and that url is a freshly signed GET for s3-backed entries. This gives good insight into input handling and output behavior. Could mention potential expiration of the URL or pagination.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then event_id flexibility, then output shape. No redundant information.

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 the output schema exists and the description covers the response shape, this is fairly complete. It lacks mention of error handling or pagination, but for a simple list tool it is sufficient. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant value for event_id by listing accepted reference forms. However, the date parameter is not explained (e.g., format). With only two parameters, this partial coverage justifies a 3.

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 attachments") and the resource ("on a specific event occurrence (date)"). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_event_occurrence_attachment and presign_event_occurrence_attachments by specifying the list operation.

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 explains how to provide event_id in various formats but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_task_attachments or presign_event_occurrence_attachments. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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