list_attachments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds non-obvious behavior: it does not download files, the fingerprint mechanism detects an API ignoring pagination, and cloud documents are links requiring separate authorization. That is genuine value beyond the structured hints, though return format and rate/permission limits are not addressed.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the non-download constraint, then pagination safety and the cloud-document caveat. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, the non-download boundary, pagination continuation, and authorization caveats. The main gap is that many of the 12 parameters receive no semantic explanation.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry more burden than it does. It clarifies the comments pagination family (comments_previous_page, fingerprints, next_offset) but says nothing about url, card_id, limit, detail, offset, include_comments, text_offsets, or section_offsets, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (card attachment metadata plus one selected page of comment attachments) and explicitly scopes out downloading, distinguishing it from the sibling download_attachment. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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 'does not download files' clause implies download_attachment is the alternative for actual file retrieval, and the description gives concrete procedural guidance for continuing pagination (follow comments_next_offset, pass comments_page_fingerprint as comments_previous_page). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or stating when this should be preferred over siblings like get_card_comments.

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