get_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read via 'Get' but does not disclose response format, pagination, or any side effects. The schema's maxItems and summarize parameters hint at list behavior that the description ignores.

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?

Two short, direct sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but does not explain how parameters like maxItems, summarize, or detailLevel affect results, nor describe the response shape. It is minimally sufficient but incomplete for complex usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but the schema descriptions are detailed (e.g., 'fields' with dot notation). The description's clarification of 'files and links' is not tied to parameters.

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 'Get all attachments on a card' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies that attachments are 'files and links attached to a card.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_attachment and delete_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 description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this tool to see the files and links attached to a card.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and clear read-only purpose make the appropriate scenario obvious.

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