smartsheet_list_attachment_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the attachment ID is invalid. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or data volume.

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 sentence with no wasted words. While it is efficient, the extreme brevity limits usefulness. It would benefit from a second sentence about behavior or prerequisites while remaining concise.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description should explain what 'version history' entails (e.g., metadata, URLs, file details), the required parameters (sheet_id, attachment_id), and pagination logic. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. The low completeness score reflects this gap.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it merely states the purpose. The parameter descriptions in the schema already cover sheet_id, page, page_size, and include_all adequately. The missing description for attachment_id is a gap, but the description does not compensate.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'version history of an attachment', clearly indicating the action and target. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like smartsheet_get_attachment or smartsheet_list_sheet_attachments, which could cause confusion. The word 'versions' does differentiate it, but a more explicit phrase like 'all versions of a given attachment' would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., attachment must exist), nor any indication of when not to use it. Given the sibling list includes multiple attachment-related tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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