List Submittal Associated Attachments

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the return type ('JSON array of submittal associated attachments'), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This provides rich behavioral context.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with purpose and usage. It includes useful context (return type, pagination, errors, endpoint) but has some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Required parameters: project_id' and the API/endpoint section could be considered extra). Overall, it is concise and 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, return type, pagination, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. With no output schema, it doesn't detail the fields within each attachment object, but for a list tool with strong annotations, this is reasonably complete. Slight gap in response shape details.

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% with descriptive parameter docs. The description only redundantly reiterates 'Required parameters: project_id' and mentions page/per_page for pagination, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'List Submittal Associated Attachments for the specified Project' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the tool's role as a discovery and ID-lookup aid ('to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that download or manage attachments.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to discover submittal associated attachments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'). However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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