List page attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that file contents are not downloaded, which is an important behavioral safeguard, and indicates a read-only metadata listing. It does not discuss auth, errors, or rate limits, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences contain the essential information, with the main action and output fields front-loaded and the no-download caveat kept as a single clarifying sentence. No filler or redundant wording.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the key no-download behavior. It omits minor details like ordering or pagination semantics, but the schema already documents the limit parameter, making the description adequately complete.

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 100%, with both pageRef and limit already documented including format, constraints, and default. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List the files attached to one page') and explicitly names the return fields (name, size, MIME type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target pages, spaces, or wikis rather than attachments.

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 gives clear context: it is for listing attachment metadata for one page and not for downloading files. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the one-page scope and no-download caveat make the intended use obvious.

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