attachments_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not explain what the output looks like, whether all attachments means global scope, or any potential side effects or permissions. This is a significant gap.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 no parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks details such as the units of size (bytes, KB, etc.) and whether 'all attachments' is system-wide or scoped to a specific context. No output schema exists to clarify the return value.

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, and the input schema is empty, providing 100% schema coverage vacuously. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering options. No additional param semantics are required.

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 'Get total size of all attachments' clearly states the action (get), the resource (attachments), and the scope (total size of all). It distinguishes from siblings like attachments_list and attachments_delete by targeting aggregate size, not listing or mutating.

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 vs alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention related tools such as attachments_list. The usage context is entirely absent.

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