List All Attachments

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains the return format ('Returns a JSON array of attachments'), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), default value behavior ('project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config'), and error payload details ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, 404'). It also reasserts the read-only nature with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' which is consistent with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds information: purpose, use case, defaults, return format, error semantics, and API context. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then logically adds details. It is slightly long but not wasteful, earning a 4 rather than a 5 for conciseness.

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 compensates well by stating the return type ('JSON array of attachments'), pagination and remaining-pages reporting, and common error statuses. It also identifies the API endpoint and feature area, and covers the required parameter and default behavior. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the project_id default ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and that 'page and per_page control pagination,' which goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions. It also flags the required parameter explicitly. This brings it above baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a list of all Time and Material attachments for the specified Project user has access to.' It specifies the exact resource type (Time and Material attachments) and scope (specified Project), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_attachments_project or list_all_attachments_company.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to discover attachments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not' criterion for a 5.

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