list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a read operation on 'live data,' which is valuable safety context. It also lists the returned metadata fields, though it does not mention pagination or permission requirements.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, and the prerequisite guidance is placed at the end, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description provides return metadata, read semantics, and a pointer to the prerequisite lookup tool. The main missing detail is pagination or result-size behavior, which would be useful for a list operation, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a moderately simple tool.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 and resource: 'List files attached to any Rentvine object,' which clearly states what the tool does. The phrase 'any Rentvine object' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_order_attachments, making the scope easy to grasp.

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 by stating the tool works with any Rentvine object and provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_object_types to find the correct object_type_id.' It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scope and prerequisite are clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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