List Employee Attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the returned fields, but it does not clarify whether all attachments are returned when no filters are specified, nor does it mention any access or auth implications. This leaves some ambiguity about default behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the key return fields. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, a more complete description would explain the response structure and the effect of filters, especially the default behavior when no filters are applied. The description lists some return fields (description, download URL, size, module) but omits likely others (e.g., uploaded date, employee code) and does not address default behavior, leaving moderate gaps for an agent.

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 7 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool's description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only tying 'description' to '(file name)', which is already noted in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant additional value.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('file attachments stored against employee records'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_employees or list_notes. It also lists the specific fields returned (description/file name, download URL, size, module), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 clear context by specifying that this tool retrieves attachments associated with employee records. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the uniqueness of the 'attachments' resource makes it obvious that this is the tool for that purpose. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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