smartsheet_list_proof_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention pagination behavior, the effect of 'include_all', error handling, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informativeness for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination semantics, or the relationship between sheet_id and proof_id.

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), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List attachments on a proof' clearly states the action (list) and resource (attachments on a proof). It distinguishes from sibling tools that list attachments on sheets, rows, discussions, etc. However, it does not clarify what a 'proof' is or that it requires both sheet_id and proof_id.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like smartsheet_list_sheet_attachments or smartsheet_get_proof. The description provides no context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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