list_work_order_attachments

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

The description notes 'live data, read', which conveys a read-only behavior, and explains the fixed object_type_id=16. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose details like whether the response includes metadata, pagination, or file types. The read-only hint is useful but minimal.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the wrapper detail is concise and informative.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit note about the return format or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool and the clear wrapper explanation make it adequate. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap here.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents work_order_id as the Rentvine workOrderID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists images and files attached to a specific work order, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the generic list_attachments sibling by noting it is a convenience wrapper with object_type_id fixed to 16.

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 when to use this tool: when you need attachments for a specific work order, versus list_attachments for other object types. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the wrapper relationship, but the context is clear enough.

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