List All Submittal Attachments With Download Urls

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the polling URL for markup-enabled downloads, pagination, and filtering capabilities. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent of specific behavioral traits, such as the downloading workflow.

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 fairly concise, leading with the main purpose and providing necessary details like polling URL and usage hints. It includes a link and endpoint info, which adds length but is valuable. Could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrases, but overall well-structured.

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 list endpoint with polling capability, the description covers the core functionality, return type (JSON with file contents or download URL), and pagination. While it lacks error handling or rate limits, the annotations and schema compensate. Overall, it provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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% for the 3 parameters. The description only notes that project_id is required and mentions filtering and pagination in general terms. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states it returns the latest version of every attachment with download URLs and polling for markup. It distinguishes from generic list tools by mentioning specific features like polling URLs and paginated overview. However, it conflates submittal enumeration with attachment listing, which may cause slight confusion.

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 advises using it for paginated overviews, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare with sibling tools like 'list_submittals' or 'list_submittal_associated_attachments', leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool.

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