evidence_list_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and does not mention that this is a read-only list operation, what the response contains, whether authentication is required, or how the attachments are represented. This is a significant gap for a tool that is part of a large sibling family.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key information is front-loaded: what the tool does, on what resource, and across what scope. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with an output schema present, the core purpose, scope, and parameter meaning are adequately covered by the description plus schema. However, with no annotations and no behavioral or alternative tool guidance, the agent is left to infer important selection and behavior details in a large sibling family. This is a minimum-viable definition with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents evidence, id, and kod. The description adds only the general context that attachments belong to 'a record' and the Slovak equivalent 'prilohy,' but it does not clarify precedence between id and kod or provide any additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('attachments of a record'), and further clarifies that this applies to 'any AbraFlexi evidence.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools like evidence_get_attachment or evidence_delete_attachment, since the task is explicitly to list rather than fetch, download, or delete.

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 phrase 'of a record in any AbraFlexi evidence' gives useful context for when the tool applies, showing it is generic across evidence types. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many attachment-related siblings, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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