List All Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds useful error behavior (401/403/404) and the company_id default. However, the description contradicts itself by saying 'Returns a single JSON object describing the attachment' after stating it returns a 'paginated list,' which undermines transparency.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary behavior, but it includes redundancy ('Required parameters: company_id' duplicates the schema) and a confusing contradictory sentence about the return type. These blemishes prevent a higher score.

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?

With no output schema, the description should accurately convey the return format, but it incorrectly states 'Returns a single JSON object' after describing a paginated list. It covers defaults, errors, and endpoint, but the misleading return description leaves a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the company_id default from procore_set_config, which is not in the schema. It also notes the required parameter, though this is redundant with the schema's required array.

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 that the tool returns a paginated list of asset-level and asset-type-level attachments for a company, including download URLs. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and distinguishes the company scope, which differentiates it from project-level attachment tools in the sibling list.

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 a usage hint ('Use this when you already know which attachment you want and need its full field set') and mentions the company_id default, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like show_attachment_company or list_attachments_project. The guidance is somewhat counterintuitive for a list-all tool, so it is only partially helpful.

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