list_attachments

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only listing behavior and that download URLs are returned, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or what metadata is included for each attachment. Some behavioral context is present, but not deeply.

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 one concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does and what the response will include. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 operation with two fully documented required parameters, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it. Without an output schema, mentioning download URLs helps, though additional details about the response shape would strengthen completeness.

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 resource_type and resource_id are already well documented. The description only adds 'IT Glue record' context and does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema covers them.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('files attached to an IT Glue record'), and adds the valuable detail that download URLs are included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_attachment or get_document.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to list files attached to a record. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the read-only list behavior is obvious and unambiguous relative to the sibling tool set.

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