get_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the return value (dictionary with attachment list) but does not disclose any potential side effects, access requirements, or limitations. For a read-only list operation this is adequate but could be richer.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, followed by clearly separated Args, Returns, and Example sections. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the operation: what it does, what parameter to use, where to get the parameter value, and what the return looks like. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying that message_id is 'The ID of the message to get attachments for (from get_messages results)'. This goes beyond the schema's simple integer type.

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 'List all attachments for a specific message', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'download_attachment' by focusing on listing rather than downloading.

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 instructs that the message_id comes from get_messages results, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like download_attachment.

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