list_attachment_inputs

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond those by mentioning 'safe files' and the 'fixed attachment input directory', which clarifies the source and filtering behavior. It does not contradict annotations, though 'safe' is not further explained.

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, concise sentence (12 words) that is front-loaded with the action 'List' and delivers all necessary information without wasted words.

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?

This is a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema available, so the description need not cover return values. The description provides the essential context (read-only, fixed directory, safe files), but leaves a minor gap by not defining what qualifies as 'safe'.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the empty schema requires no additional semantics.

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 a specific verb 'List' and identifies a unique resource: 'safe files available in readNdraft's fixed attachment input directory'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or save_attachment, which target different resources.

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 implies usage context through the phrase 'attachment input directory', suggesting it is used to enumerate files available for attachments. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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