attachments_list

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

The verb 'List' communicates a read-only operation, which is the key behavioral trait. Without annotations, it does not disclose details like response format or access scope, but these are less critical for a no-parameter list operation.

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 entire description is a single three-word sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not mention return value shape or potential scope limitations. With no output schema and no annotations, more context would be helpful.

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 parameters, the schema already fully covers the input. The description adds the qualifier 'all' as context, which is sufficient for this tool.

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 resource ('attachments'), clearly stating the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like attachments_create or attachments_size, though it does not clarify the scope of 'all'.

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 it should be used when all attachments are needed, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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