list_document_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it parses document content for attachment references and returns a list with context snippets, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a bulleted list of use cases, and then explicit Args/Returns sections. Every part contributes value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter), the description fully covers its purpose, usage context, parameter, and return value. The presence of an output schema and clear when-to-use guidance makes it complete.

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?

The description defines the single parameter 'document_id' as 'The document ID to scan.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this explanation adds necessary meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could include format or additional details.

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 attachment IDs referenced in a document.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (attachment IDs) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools via bullet points that mention related tools like get_attachment_url and fetch_attachment.

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 lists three use cases: discovering attachments, finding IDs for get_attachment_url or fetch_attachment, and auditing document references. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and references sibling tools, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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